Slektsforum Slektsforum
Slekt og Data
 
 HjelpHjelp    SøkSøk     Logg InnLogg Inn  Bli medlemBli DIS medlem  engelsk
Hvordan logge på? Les her om registrering og pålogging.
Start nytt emne Gå til side Forrige  1, 2, 3 ... , 179, 180, 181  Neste   
Vis forrige emne :: Vis neste emne  
Av Innlegg
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 04:57:03    Tittel: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochial Svar med Sitat

GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/presidents_and_first_ladies/27515

George Washington is remembered for many things. He was the victorious
general who defeated the most powerful army on earth to win our
nation's independence. He then provided the leadership for the
Constitutional Convention that formed our new government. He then led
our new government as our first president. He was "first in war, first
in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen." But few people know
anything about his early military career.


Washington began his military career at the age of 20. He idolized his
half-brother Lawrence, who was the adjutant of the Virginia militia.
When Lawrence died in 1752, George applied for his job. George had no
military experience, no military training, in fact very little formal
education of any kind since he had dropped out of school at 15. Still,
as though it were a family possession to be inherited, he received
Lawrence's job as adjutant of the Virginia militia. At 20, with no
training or experience, he became a major in the largest military
organization in the Western Hemisphere.
In October 1753, looking for duty more exciting than drilling and
training rural militia, Washington volunteered for a dangerous
mission. British Governor Robert Dinwiddie had received word that the
French had come down from Canada and built a fort in the western
territory near the Ohio River. The Governor sent Washington and a
small force to carry a message to the French to leave English
territory. (Virginia claimed this land, as well as most of the lands
west of all the English colonies from Georgia to New York.)
Washington left in November and took two months to make the hazardous
journey through the winter snows and the wilderness to the French Fort
Le Boeuf, (near present-day Erie, Pa.), and back to Virginia. The
French commander's blunt reply was, "As to the summons you send me to
retire, I do not think myself obliged to obey it." Washington informed
the Governor that the French were probably going to build another fort
on the Ohio River near present-day Pittsburgh. Governor Dinwiddie had
already sent men to that place to build a fort. Washington's report
convinced the Governor to send troops to protect the workers from
French attack.
In March 1754, Washington, now a lieutenant colonel, led an expedition
to the Ohio River to hold the region for Britain. His force consisted
of less than 200 poorly trained militia. After a month, and having
covered less than a third of the distance, he received word that the
French had already captured the uncompleted British fort that was his
objective. Still, he pressed forward.

George Washington is remembered for many things. He was the victorious
general who defeated the most powerful army on earth to win our
nation's independence. He then provided the leadership for the
Constitutional Convention that formed our new government. He then led
our new government as our first president. He was "first in war, first
in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen." But few people know
anything about his early military career.

Washington began his military career at the age of 20. He idolized his
half-brother Lawrence, who was the adjutant of the Virginia militia.
When Lawrence died in 1752, George applied for his job. George had no
military experience, no military training, in fact very little formal
education of any kind since he had dropped out of school at 15. Still,
as though it were a family possession to be inherited, he received
Lawrence's job as adjutant of the Virginia militia. At 20, with no
training or experience, he became a major in the largest military
organization in the Western Hemisphere.
In October 1753, looking for duty more exciting than drilling and
training rural militia, Washington volunteered for a dangerous
mission. British Governor Robert Dinwiddie had received word that the
French had come down from Canada and built a fort in the western
territory near the Ohio River. The Governor sent Washington and a
small force to carry a message to the French to leave English
territory. (Virginia claimed this land, as well as most of the lands
west of all the English colonies from Georgia to New York.)
Washington left in November and took two months to make the hazardous
journey through the winter snows and the wilderness to the French Fort
Le Boeuf, (near present-day Erie, Pa.), and back to Virginia. The
French commander's blunt reply was, "As to the summons you send me to
retire, I do not think myself obliged to obey it." Washington informed
the Governor that the French were probably going to build another fort
on the Ohio River near present-day Pittsburgh. Governor Dinwiddie had
already sent men to that place to build a fort. Washington's report
convinced the Governor to send troops to protect the workers from
French attack.
In March 1754, Washington, now a lieutenant colonel, led an expedition
to the Ohio River to hold the region for Britain. His force consisted
of less than 200 poorly trained militia. After a month, and having
covered less than a third of the distance, he received word that the
French had already captured the uncompleted British fort that was his
objective. Still, he pressed forward.

n late May, he encountered his first French troops, and had a skirmish
which is considered by many to have been the first shots of the French
and Indian War. In Washington's own words:
"I was the first man that approached them, and the first whom they
saw, and immediately they ran to their arms and fired briskly till
they were defeated....I fortunately escaped without any wound, for the
right wing, where I stood, was exposed to, and received, all the
enemy's fire; and it was the part where the man was killed and the
rest wounded. I heard the bullets whistle, and believe me, there is
something charming in the sound."
When this last quotation was reported to King George II later in the
year, he is said to have commented that Washington "would not say so,
if he had been used to hear many." Washington himself, years later
when asked about the quote, would only say that it had been made "when
I was young."
In this brief fight, Washington's troops killed 10 Frenchmen and
captured 21, with the loss of only one Virginian. One of the killed
was the French commander. Washington now set about building a stockade
fort, which he named Fort Necessity. Governor Dinwiddie rewarded him
by promoting him to full colonel.
The French sent a retaliatory attack against Washington before he
could complete his fort. He was surrounded by the French. It was
raining hard, and his poorly trained and ill-disciplined troops were
cold, and their gunpowder was wet. They broke into the rum supply and
got drunk. With drunken troops with wet gunpowder, there was nothing
Washington could do but surrender. Although he had refused when asked
twice before, the third time he could not refuse. In an ironic twist
of fate, Washington surrendered on July 4th, 1754. Having dropped out
of school, he had never learned to speak French, which all English
gentlemen learned. When he could not read the written French demands,
he had to rely on a Dutchman among his troops who spoke some French.
Due to the faulty translation, Washington signed a surrender document
which admitted to the assassination of the French commander killed in
the battle. He admitted that the French commander had been captured,
and killed while an unarmed prisoner. He had also agreed that the
"disputed" lands belonged to France, and agreed that the British would
not "invade" the area for at least a year. The French broadcast this
document widely in justification of their actions during the French
and Indian War that continued for the next nine years. Washington
immediately returned to Williamsburg to give a first hand report to
the Governor. He was absolved of all blame, with the Dutchman being
held responsible. Washington was acclaimed for his soldierly courage.

Shortly after this incident, word came from London that all militia
units would be placed under one commander, and that no colonial
officer would be higher than a captain, with all higher officers
supplied by the English. Washington retired rather than accept the
demotion. But this was not the end of his military career.
In the Spring of 1755, Major General Braddock prepared to lead a
regiment of regular British troops to the Ohio and capture French Fort
Duquesne. Knowing of Washington's courage and previous experience, he
invited Washington to join him as an aide-de-camp. In July, they
reached the Monongahela River and fought a battle with the French.
During the battle, Braddock was killed and the British troops
defeated. Washington took command of the British troops and prevented
a rout. He got the British troops home safely, again being hailed for
his courage. At 23, Washington was now the most experienced military
officer in Virginia. He was again appointed commander of the Virginia
militia with the rank of colonel.
Colonel Washington traveled to Philadelphia, Boston and New York to
confer with northern military leaders. He made a most favorable
impression on these leaders, and they remembered him later. In 1758,
Washington led an expedition which captured Fort Dusquene and re-named
it Fort Pitt. With the French driven from Virginia's lands, Washington
retired. Later, he was elected to the Continental Congress to
represent Virginia. With an army being formed to fight the British,
Washington arrived in Congress wearing his colonel's uniform, giving a
clear message as to wear he stood on the issue and his readiness to
join in the fight. Congress unanimously voted to name him commander of
the Continental Army, and the rest, as they say, is history.

aaron
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 05:17:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 05:29:02    Tittel: Re: Don't Be Parochial Svar med Sitat

Sitat:
Feb 21, 5:30 pm, Jwc1...@aol.com wrote:
On Feb  20, 8:42 pm, "D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com>  wrote:
Washington and George III were actually cousins.
"Hal"  <SpamTh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
An  honourable US tradition since Washington, and so shouldn't be held
 >> > against him, or against heroes like Benedict  Arnold. Hal
  Gee,  Washington was a traitor to the US? Who knew.
George III  took it personally. Did you know that history started
before  1776?
  George Washington was a Captain  in the British militia during the
French and Indian wars just as several other  future Continental army officers
were. Sincerely,  James  W Cummings Dixmont, Maine USA

JWC Dixmont is a sock puppet for Wile E Coyote Will Johnson, meep,
meep
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 05:37:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

On Feb 21, 11:17 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
Sitat:
   That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

deemsbill is a sock puppet for Wile E Coyote Will Johnson, meep,
meep
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 06:27:02    Tittel: Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) Svar med Sitat

Although it seems to be now accepted that the Sir Thomas Vaughan who
was executed in 1483 was not the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower,
it's worth noting that Sir Roger apparently did have a legitimate son
Sir Thomas of Tretower (who himself was married and had children) and
also an illegitimate son Thomas who "was long a prisoner in France"
according to the Dictionary of Welsh Biography (which is now on-line
as indicated in the post below).

One secondary source which (apparently incorrectly) assigns the Sir
Thomas who d. 1483 as a son of Sir Roger is George T. Clark's "Limbus
Patrum Morgania et Glamorgania" of 1886. Clark definitely confuses
the legitimate son Sir Thomas and the supposed illegitimate son Sir
Thomas and says that both were beheaded in 1483 - clearly incorrect
with respect to the legitimate son, who was living in 1486 when he
received a pardon from Henry VII (per DWB).

The ODNB entry for the Sir Thomas Vaughan who d. 1483 indicates that
there were at least three other contemporaneous Thomas Vaughans - one
or more of whom may have been the sons of Sir Roger mentioned above.
Accordingly, it's possible that the three items mentioned below by
Adrian may not all refer to the same Thomas Vaughan - especially the
1st and 2nd items.

On Feb 21, 8:49 am, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Sitat:
In a message dated 21/02/2008 12:25:26 GMT Standard Time,

td...@gofree.indigo.ie writes:

Hi Folks,
Has any recent research shed more light on the parents of Sir Thomas
Vaughan? A lot of contradictory opinions are expressed in the articles
below.

The National Library of Wales through it's website 'Welsh Biography
Online', states Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) was the son of Robert
Vaughan of Monmouth.

'ODNB', identifies Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) as the youngest
illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower.

'The Poetical Works of Lewis Glyn Cothi' Royal Cambrian Inst., 1837;
simply has Thomas Vaughan as the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower.

' History of the Life of Richard III' by James Gairdner, 1878 has:
"It has been commonly supposed that the Sir Thomas Vaughan put to
death by Richard III, along with Rivers and Lord Richard Grey, was Sir
Thomas Vaughan of Tretower. This is a mistake."

'Grants, Etc., from the Crown During the Reign of Edward the Fifth'
has: p. xv, [fn b.] "In the notes to the Poems of Lewis Glyn Cothi,
printed for the Cymmrodorion, ... in 1837, 8vo., the editor the Rev.
John Jones, M.A. of Christchurch, Oxford, ... and in a pedigree
identifies sir Thomas Vaughan with the son and heir of sir Roger
Vaughan of Tretower, co. Brecon, by Cicely, daughter of Thomas ab
Phylip Vychan , heiress of Talgarth, in the same county; but Johns, in
his History of Brecknockshire ... and Sir Samuel Meyrick, in his notes
to Lewis Dwnn's Visitations of Wales .... state the chamberlain of the
prince of Wales to have been the youngest illegitimate son of Sir
Roger Vaughan of Tretower, by an illegitimate daughter of a prior of
the monastery of Abergavenny... This latter account is probably to be
preferred; and if that is the case we may consider the courtier to be
the same Thomas Vaughan, an esquire for the king's body, who having
married Alianor, the widow of Thomas Browne ...."

Regards
Tom Dunn, Kilbrittain, Co. Cork, Ireland



The following PRO record would seem to prove that Thomas Vaughan late of
Tretower was the son of Robert and Margaret Vaghan:

PRO Web Page: C 1/159/64
Richard Raulyns, son and heir of Alice, late the wife of Thomas Vaughan,
knight. v. Roger Boughchier: Refusal to carry out an award by Oliver King,
secretary to the King.
KB 9/957
Returned oyer and terminer commission, Heref, before John earl of Lincoln,
William Huse, Robert Willoughby and associates at Hereford on 16 May 1486,
under commission of 11 May 1486 for all treasons, etc in Herefordshire (CPR
1485-94, 106): file, treason trials of Thomas Vaughan late of Tretower in the
Marchch of Wales and others
1 Hen VII
E 210/2694
Defeasance by John, Abbot of Westminster, and the Chapter of Llandaff of a
bond given them by Monmouth Priory ( Reynold, prior ) on condition that they
observe their ordinance for the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate for the
good estate of Thomas Vaghan, knight, Chamberlain to the King and the Prince
of Wales, and for his soul after his death, and for the souls of Robert and
Margaret Vaghan his parents, and for the Prince of Wales : Monm.
1477.

Cheers,
Adrian
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 11:29:05    Tittel: Re: Clifford of Mapledurham? Svar med Sitat

I agree that Roger de Cliffords first wife was named Maud.
I just don't agree that she was obviously Maud the widow. I think she was
quite possibly Maud the not-yet-born child.

Will Johnson



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 12:02:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

On Feb 21, 11:37 pm, WILeeLcoJOteg...@gmail.com wrote:
Sitat:
On Feb 21, 11:17 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:

   That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

deemsbill is a sock puppet for Wile E Coyote Will Johnson, meep,
meep

I'm sure glad you joined the conversation. Any more gems for the
rest of us?
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 14:49:02    Tittel: Re: Clifford of Mapledurham? Svar med Sitat

Will,

Assuming the expected child was born post mortem in 1239 and named
Maud/Matilda, she would, with her husband Roger de Clifford, have sworn
a writ against Christiana Ledet prior to Trinity term 27 Henry III
[1243]. That scenario doesn't seem feasible to me.

In addition, she and her sister Juliana would have been co-heiresses of
their father Hugh de Gurnay. We know that Robert de Clifford was lord of
Mapledurham in 1251 (according to the Hundred Roll). How, then, does
her sister Juliana take Mapledurham to her husband William Bardolf?

Tony


WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Sitat:
I agree that Roger de Cliffords first wife was named Maud.
I just don't agree that she was obviously Maud the widow. I think she was
quite possibly Maud the not-yet-born child.

Will Johnson



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 14:52:02    Tittel: Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) Svar med Sitat

Hi Folks,
My thanks to Adrian, Douglas, and John Higgins, for helping to clarify
the parents of the various Sir Thomas Vaughans that were living in the
15th century.

Sir ROGER VAUGHAN, the third son of Roger Vaughan of Bredwardine was
the first of the Vaughans to reside at Tretower. The residence was a
gift to him from his half-brother, William Herbert. [NLW].
His first wife was Denise, daughter of Thomas ap Philip Vaughan of
Talgarth, and she was the mother of the heir (Sir) Thomas Vaughan, who
as John Higgins points out received a pardon from Henry VII in 1486. A
large number of illegitimate children are ascribed to Sir Roger
Vaughan. [NLW]

The Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower, who was the son and heir of Sir
Roger Vaughan (d. 1471), was, as John Higgins points out, still living
when he was pardoned by Henry VII, in 1486. The PRO record KB 9/957
which Adrian noted, would seem to apply to this Sir Thomas Vaughan.

PRO record E 210/2694 which discusses the 1477 defeasance, clearly
shows that the parents of Sir Thomas Vaughan who was Chamberlain to
the king, and who was beheaded in 1483, to be Robert and Margaret
Vaugh[a]n. So no connection to Tretower is shown.

PRO record C 1/159/64 may or may not be relate to either of these men.

Regards,
Tom Dunn, Kilbrittain, Co. Cork, Ireland


On Feb 22, 5:27 am, jhiggins...@yahoo.com wrote:
Sitat:
Although it seems to be now accepted that the Sir Thomas Vaughan who
was executed in 1483 was not the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of Tretower,
it's worth noting that Sir Roger apparently did have a legitimate son
Sir Thomas of Tretower (who himself was married and had children) and
also an illegitimate son Thomas who "was long a prisoner in France"
according to the Dictionary of Welsh Biography (which is now on-line
as indicated in the post below).

One secondary source which (apparently incorrectly) assigns the Sir
Thomas who d. 1483 as a son of Sir Roger is George T. Clark's "Limbus
Patrum Morgania et Glamorgania" of 1886.  Clark definitely confuses
the legitimate son Sir Thomas and the supposed illegitimate son Sir
Thomas and says that both were beheaded in 1483 - clearly incorrect
with respect to the legitimate son, who was living in 1486 when he
received a pardon from Henry VII (per DWB).

The ODNB entry for the Sir Thomas Vaughan who d. 1483 indicates that
there were at least three other contemporaneous Thomas Vaughans - one
or more of whom may have been the sons of Sir Roger mentioned above.
Accordingly, it's possible that the three items mentioned below by
Adrian may not all refer to the same Thomas Vaughan - especially the
1st and 2nd items.

On Feb 21, 8:49 am, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:



In a message dated 21/02/2008 12:25:26 GMT Standard Time,

td...@gofree.indigo.ie writes:

Hi Folks,
Has any recent research shed more light on the parents of  Sir Thomas
Vaughan? A lot of contradictory opinions are expressed in the  articles
below.

The National Library of Wales through it's website  'Welsh Biography
Online', states Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) was the son of  Robert
Vaughan of Monmouth.

'ODNB', identifies Sir Thomas Vaughan (d.  1483) as the youngest
illegitimate son of Sir Roger Vaughan of  Tretower.

'The Poetical Works of Lewis Glyn Cothi' Royal Cambrian Inst.,  1837;
simply has Thomas Vaughan as the son of Sir Roger Vaughan of  Tretower..

' History of the Life of Richard III' by James Gairdner,  1878  has:
"It has been commonly supposed that the Sir Thomas Vaughan  put to
death by Richard III, along with Rivers and Lord Richard Grey, was  Sir
Thomas Vaughan of Tretower. This is a mistake."

'Grants, Etc.,  from the Crown During the Reign of Edward the Fifth'
has:  p. xv, [fn  b.] "In the notes to the Poems of Lewis Glyn Cothi,
printed for the  Cymmrodorion, ... in 1837, 8vo., the editor the Rev.
John Jones, M.A. of  Christchurch, Oxford, ... and in a pedigree
identifies sir Thomas Vaughan  with the son and heir of sir Roger
Vaughan of Tretower, co. Brecon, by  Cicely, daughter of Thomas ab
Phylip Vychan , heiress of Talgarth, in the  same county; but Johns, in
his History of Brecknockshire ... and Sir Samuel  Meyrick, in his notes
to Lewis Dwnn's Visitations of Wales .... state the  chamberlain of the
prince of Wales to have been the youngest illegitimate son  of Sir
Roger Vaughan of Tretower, by an illegitimate daughter of a prior  of
the monastery of Abergavenny... This latter account is probably to  be
preferred; and if that is the case we may consider the courtier to  be
the same Thomas Vaughan, an esquire for the king's body, who  having
married Alianor, the widow of Thomas Browne  ...."

Regards
Tom Dunn, Kilbrittain, Co. Cork, Ireland

The following PRO record would seem to prove that  Thomas Vaughan late of
Tretower was the son of Robert and Margaret  Vaghan:

PRO Web Page: C 1/159/64
Richard Raulyns, son and heir  of Alice, late the wife of Thomas Vaughan,
knight. v. Roger Boughchier: Refusal  to carry out an award by Oliver King,
secretary to the King.
KB  9/957
Returned oyer and terminer commission, Heref, before John earl of  Lincoln,
William Huse, Robert Willoughby and associates at Hereford on 16 May  1486,
under commission of 11 May 1486 for all treasons, etc in Herefordshire  (CPR
1485-94, 106): file, treason trials of Thomas Vaughan late of Tretower in  the
Marchch of Wales and others
1 Hen VII
E 210/2694
Defeasance by  John, Abbot of Westminster, and the Chapter of Llandaff of a
bond given them by  Monmouth Priory ( Reynold, prior ) on condition that they
observe their  ordinance for the maintenance of a chaplain to celebrate for the
good estate of  Thomas Vaghan, knight, Chamberlain to the King and the Prince
of Wales, and for  his soul after his death, and for the souls of Robert and
Margaret Vaghan his  parents, and for the Prince of Wales : Monm.
1477.

Cheers,
Adrian- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 15:44:02    Tittel: Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) Svar med Sitat

Well it looks as though I will have to go through my Thomas Vaughans and
work out which is which. Here are a few more notes I have gathered.

Adrian

Thomas Vaughan.
p. 363: Henry Beauchamp, earl of Warwick died June 1446 at the age of 21,
and his sole daughter and heir died aged six less than three years later. As a
result, in the week beginning 12 June 1446 scors of appointments on the
Warwick estate were confirmed by the crown and the late duke’s properties were
farmed or given to temporary custodians. Almost without exception, the
recipients were either king’s knights (like William Beauchamp), king’s esquites
(like Thomas Vaughan and Edmund Mountford, a former Warwick servant), king’s
serjeants (…), or other royal servants … yet others were associated with the
queen’s establishment …;
p. 441: In the Parl of 1449-50, the Isle of Wight’s security was giving
grounds for concern. In the summer of 1449 the Isle had been terrorized by John
Newport, the duke of York’s steward and had been discharged from office. A
small company was mustered to defend Carisbrooke castle, placed on a five day
footing under one of the king’s serjeants-at-arms, John Baker. His
indenture for 20 men ran from 18 Oct 1450 to at least Michaelmas 1452; the master of
the king’s ordnance, Thomas Vaughan, provided weapons early in Oct 1450.;
p. 560; Interference in the lives and careers of aliens led some of the
more prosperous – even the occasional Welshman who was worried about Henry IV’s
statutes – to take steps to secure their position. William ap Gwilyn ap
Gruffydd, whose mother was Joan, daughter of Sir William Stanley, and Thomas
Vaughan, who was sponsored by the duke of Somerset and Adam Moleyns.;
p 825; The attainder was the pricipal business of the month-long parliament
(which was dissolve only five days before Christms 1460 and followed the
captire of king Henry VI by the Yorkists. Those attainted included Thomas
Vaughan … for their machinations in London.;
p 847; Wm VI held a great council at Coventry at th end of June. The
principal absentees were openly accused. This action is likely to have
precipitated the armed clashes of 1459. The king and his household appear to have
reached Coventry by 9 May. Sir William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, two of York’s
councillors, may have been responsible for sending news of the council to
Calais from London on 4 July.;
p 864: Following Wm VI capture (10 July 1460) most of his household was
replaced by Yorkists which penetrated below the senior levels, Thomas Vaughan was
appointed master of the king’s ordinance;
p 877: York’s servant Thomas Vaughan was keeper of the great wardrobe by 1
September 1460;
p 882: Following the battle of St Alban’s, 17 Feb 1461 Warwick Yorkist army
was beaten, one of those to flee was Thomas Vaughan
(The Reign of Henry VI (Sutton publishing 1998, 1st pub 1981))

pp 210-12: On 30 Apr 1483, at Stony Stratford. … Close by (the boy king)
Edward V were his aged chamberlain Sir Thomas Vaughan and his half brother Lord
Richard Grey. … Vaughan, Grey and a few others surrounded Edward as he
retired to his lodgings … Richard Er Warwick (later Rd III) … Certain ministers
about the dead King, he said, had ruined his health by encouraging him in his
excesses. These men must be removed from power in order that they might not
play the same game with the son as with the father. … Lord Grey and Sir Thomas
Vaugham were promptly arrested.; 216 Vaughan was transferred to Pontefract;
221 Richard proposed that a charge of treason be brought against Anthony
Woodville, Earl Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, but the council agreed upon a
compramise. No specific charges were brought, but all were of one mind that Rivers
and his associates must be ketp in prison; 252-3: On 24 June [1483] Rivers was
escourted to Pontefract. Grey had been brought from Middleham Castle. The
next day the three men went to the block.
(Richard The Third by Paul Murray Kendall, 1955)

p. 597.…In 1476 Sir Thomas Vaughan was appointed surveyor and demiser of the
revenues of the Norfolk inheritance (John duke of Norfolk deceased).
Vaughan (esquire of the body and keeper of the great wardrobe to Henry VI) had been
Edward’s treasurer of the Chamber, and an indispensable household figure who
in 1473 was made chamberlain to the young Prince Edward and was a member of
the prince’s council. He had a house in Stepney and was co-lessee with the
prince of Wales of another which he had built within the precinct of
Westminster Abbey `for his dwelling and for the pleasure of the king and his consort
Elizabeth and their son’. {fn. Cal. Pat. R 1467-1477, p 455. Vaughan’s
commission, several as administrators of lands that had fallen in to the
Exchequer, are numerous.} It was characteristic of Edward’s system to employ in his
household a man who served as sheriff and on the quorum of Surrey and Sussex,
thus linking country and central administrations. … p. 613
(The Fifteenth Century, 1399-1485 by E.F. Jacob (1st pub 1961))

Vaughan, Thomas (KB 18 April 1475)
(Shaw’s Knight’s)

Sir Thomas Vaughan buried in Westminster.
(052 (John Stow’s survay of London) p 410)

Edward Stanley 1st Baron Monteagle m2 before 25 Nov 1501 Elizabeth (-15 Jan
1514/5) d of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower, co Brecon and widow of John,
Lord Grey of Wilton, and relict of Sir Thomas Cokesey (otherwise Greville or
Grevile). She d. 15 Jan 1514/5.
(004 (CP) Vol IX p 115 (Monteagle))

John Audeley, knight, lord Audeley. v. Sir Thomas Vaughan, knight, husband
of Alianore, previously the wife of Sir Thomas Broun. Land called `Walsted'
and `Huddes' at Lindfield, late of Sir Thomas Broun, knight, attainted.
Sussex.
(PRO C 1/59/24)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 16:33:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

<deemsbill@aol.com> wrote ...
Sitat:


That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

Purely a technicality/legalism but.....although Washington held a commission
from the Governor of Virginia, he joined Braddock's expeditionary force as a
"Volunteer". I suspect that based upon the legal standards of the day (and
even today), his status was at that point as a part of the "British Army".
Certainly, the teamsters and other civilians employed by that force were
serving the Crown, not Virginia.

TMO
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 17:06:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

On Feb 22, 10:37 am, "TMOliver" <tmoliverjr...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote:
Sitat:
deemsb...@aol.com> wrote ...



That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

Purely a technicality/legalism but.....although Washington held a commission
from the Governor of Virginia, he joined Braddock's expeditionary force as a
"Volunteer". I suspect that based upon the legal standards of the day (and
even today), his status was at that point as a part of the "British Army".
Certainly, the teamsters and other civilians employed by that force were
serving the Crown, not Virginia.

TMO

Best clues would be how he was addressed by the other officers in the
field and what his messing status was back at base.

"Drawing heavily on Washington's own diaries, letters, and dispatches,
the author follows the future president's remarkable rise from a
callow young man with no inheritance, no trade, and few prospects to
the respected commander-in-chief of the military forces of British
America's foremost colony. The book reveals that this progress was not
preordained by Washington's steadily growing qualities of leadership,
courage, and devotion to liberty and justice but also involved
conniving, conspiracy, fawning on superiors, badmouthing subordinates,
covering up disastrous mistakes, and the occasional outright lie."
Officer material

Thomas A. Lewis, For King and Country: The Maturing of George
Washington, 1748-1760 (1992).
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 17:19:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

deemsbill@aol.com wrote:
Sitat:

That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army force
available for emergencies, extra to the English standing army. The 1757
Militia Act created a more professional force, with better organisation,
better uniforms and better record-keeping.

The English (later British) Empire had many militia units, including
dozens in England itself. America was thus one of the many British
territories which raised its own milita units and these units were the
primary British army units in the early days of the colony. To that end,
all the colonial militia units were British colonial units and the
soldiers within them were British colonial militia soldiers. Including
George Washington.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 17:20:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

On Feb 22, 11:07 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Sitat:
On Feb 22, 10:37 am, "TMOliver" <tmoliverjr...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote:

deemsb...@aol.com> wrote ...

  That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

Purely a technicality/legalism but.....although Washington held a commission
from the Governor of Virginia, he joined Braddock's expeditionary force as a
"Volunteer".  I suspect that based upon the legal standards of the day (and
even today), his status was at that point as a part of the "British Army".
Certainly, the teamsters and other civilians employed by that force were
serving the Crown, not Virginia.

TMO

Best clues would be how he was addressed by the other officers in the
field and what his messing status was back at base.

"Drawing heavily on Washington's own diaries, letters, and dispatches,
the author follows the future president's remarkable rise from a
callow young man with no inheritance, no trade, and few prospects to
the respected commander-in-chief of the military forces of British
America's foremost colony. The book reveals that this progress was not
preordained by Washington's steadily growing qualities of leadership,
courage, and devotion to liberty and justice but also involved
conniving, conspiracy, fawning on superiors, badmouthing subordinates,
covering up disastrous mistakes, and the occasional outright lie."
Officer material

Thomas A. Lewis, For King and Country: The Maturing of George
Washington, 1748-1760 (1992).

sure hope this thread does not slip into revisionist history
this raises the issue but does not settle the larger issue
for sons and daughters of gateway British ancestors
were members of state militias, officers and others, fighting for
states
or for the British crown prior to the Revolution?

aaron
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 17:46:02    Tittel: Children of Sir Thomas Vaughan (died 1483) Svar med Sitat

Dear Tom, Adrian, etc.

Another problem involved with Sir Thonas Vaughan (died 1483) is the
correct identification of his children. Sir Thomas Vaughan is known
to have married shortly before 18 Oct. 1460 Eleanor Arundel, widow of
Sir Thomas Browne. The old D.N.B. and other sources usually assign
two children to Sir Thomas and his wife, Eleanor, namely, one son,
Henry, and a daughter, Anne, wife of John Wogan, K.B.

See the following weblink for the DNB account of Sir Thomas Vaughan:

http://books.google.com/books?id=kicJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=Thomas+Vaugh an+Wogan#PPA180,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=kicJAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA181&dq=Thomas+Vaugh an+Wogan

The son Henry Vaughan allegedly had a son, Thomas, who adopted the
name Parry, who left descendants. However, this is surely an error,
as Anne, wife of John Wogan, was styled "doughter and sole heir to Sir
Thomas Vaughan knight" in Visitations by the Heralds in Wales (H.S.P.
n.s. 14) (1996): 77-78 (Wogan pedigree) as well as other visitations.
For Anne to be daughter and heiress of her father means that if she
had a brother, he died without issue.

Rather, my research suggests that Sir Thomas Vaughan had a son and
heir, Walter Vaughan, Esq., who was living in 1508, when he and John
Wogan, knight, incurred a debt of 500 marks to Hugh Vaughan, knight
[of Middlesex]. Below is a full abstract of that document:

Reference: PRO Document, C 241/278/82
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp

Debtor: Walter Vaughan, esquire, the son and heir of Thomas Vaughan,
knight, deceased, and John Wogan, knight.
Creditor: Hugh Vaughan, knight [of Middlesex].
Amount: 500m.
Before whom: William Browne, Mayor of the Staple of Westminster.
When taken: 10/03/1508
First term: 23/04/1508
Last term: 23/04/1508
Writ to: Sheriff of [Middlesex]
Sent by: James Yarford, knight, Mayor of the Staple of Westminster.
Endorsement: Hereford [Glouc' Somer' Wiltes crossed out] Coram d'no
Rege in Canc' sua p'x futur'.
Covering dates 1527 Jan 30

Sir Hugh Vaughan to whom the above debt was owed appears to have been
Sir Hugh Vaughan, of St. Peter, Westminster, and Littleton, Middlesex,
Gentleman usher and Esquire of the body to King Henry VII, Lieutenant
of the Tower, Captain of the King's Guard, Bailiff of Westminster,
Privy Councillor, Captain of Jersey, 1507-1532. Sir Hugh Vaughan was
a native of Wales, but his parentage is unknown. He married before
Easter Term 1495 (date of settlement) (probably as his 2nd wife) Anne
Percy, widow of Thomas Hungerford, Knt.and Laurence Raynsford, Knt.,
and youngest child of Henry Percy, Knt., 2nd Earl of Northumberland,
5th Lord Percy, by Eleanor, daughter of Ralph Neville, K.G., 1st Earl
of Westmorland, 4th Lord Neville of Raby. By his wife, Anne Percy, or
an earlier wife, he had one son, Rowland, and three daughters, _____
(wife of Sir Thomas Viclu), Bridget (wife of John Payne, Gent.), and
Margaret (wife of _____ Staunton). In 1492 he killed Sir James Parker
in combat at Richmond, Surrey, following a controversy regarding the
arms that Garter had given him. In 1510 he bought various lands and
tenements in Littleton, Laleham, and Upper Shepperton, Middlesex from
James Yarford, Citizen and Alderman of London. In 1515 John Belle and
Isabel his wife conveyed premises in Knightbridge, Paddington, and
Westminster, Middlesex to Sir Hugh Vaughan, David Vaughan, Walter
Vaughan son and heir of Walter Vaughan, Gent., deceased, and others.
In the period, 1518-1522, John Grene, bachelor of physic, sued him in
Chancery for fees for seven years' medical attendance on defendant,
Lady Hungerford, now his wife, his children, and servants. His wife,
Anne, died 5 July 1522. Sir Hugh married (probably 3rd) Blanche
Castell, daughter of John Castell, Gent., of London, mercer, by
Isabel, daughter and co-heiress of John Metford, Esq.. She was a
legatee in the 1493 will of her grandmother, Blanche Metford. They
had three sons, Anthony, George, and Francis, Esq., and four
daughters, Elizabeth (probably wife of _____ Fisher), Anne (wife of
Nicholas Townley, Esq.), Jane (wife of _____ Biddulph), and Katherine
(wife of _____ Ryse). In 1529 he was distrained for arrears of quit
rent on Ippewells in Littleton, Middlesex which he owed for the
previous 18 years. Sir Hugh Vaughan died in 1536, and is buried with
his wife, Anne Percy, in St. Michael's Chapel, Westminster Abbey. He
left a will dated 16 July 1533, proved 14 Sept. 1536 (P.C.C. 40
Hogen). His widow, Blanche, died 8 Dec. 1553, and was buried in the
church of St. Mary Magadalene, Littleton, Middlesex.

As for Anne Vaughan, the daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas Vaughan,
my research indicates that she married 15 March 1484 (date of grant)
John Wogan, K.B., Knight of the King's Chamber, of Wiston,
Pembrokeshire, son and heir of John Wogan, Knt., of Wiston,
Pembrokeshire, by Maud, daughter and heiress of William Clement. They
had six sons, Henry, John, Knt., William, David, Robert, and Thomas,
and four daughters, Maud, Anne (wife of James Bowen, Knt.), Joan, and
Elizabeth (wife of Richard ap Harry ap Bowen). In 1484 King Richard
III granted John and his wife, Anne, and their heirs male the manors
of Flete and Holbeton, Devon and lands in Ditteridge, Wiltshire. In
1501 William Perrott, Esq. authorized him and William Adams the
younger, Gent. to deliver seisin of messuages and lands in Tenby,
Pembrokeshire to his son and heir, Owen Perrott, Gent. In 1519 he was
granted custody of 1/4th of the possessions of David Mathew and his
wife, Alice, both deceased, during the minority of his granddaughter,
Joan, daughter and heiress of his late son, Henry Wogan. Sir John
Wogan died 6 July 1526.

References: Meyrick, Heraldic Vis. of Wales 1 (1846): 42 (Wogan
pedigree: "Syr John Wgan Knt = Ann sol eyr Syr Tomas Vychan off
Pwmffrett Kt"), 107 (Wogan pedigree: Syr John Wgan kt = Ann merch a
koeyr Syr Tomas Vychan kt. o Pomfrett"). West Wales Hist. Recs. 6
(1916): 194-197. Siddons, Visitations by the Heralds in Wales (H.S.P.
n.s. 14) (1996): 77-78 (Wogan pedigree: "Sir John Owgan knight maryed
Anne, doughter and sole heir to Sir Thomas Vaughan knight, and they
had yssue John, Willyam."). PRO Documents, C 1/969/52-53 (Chancery
Proceeding dated 1538-1544: Richard Cornewall, esquire, son of Richard
Cornewall, knight, and Jenett his wife, granddaughter and heir of John
Wogan, knight, v. John Wogan, esquire.: Messuages and land in Hereford
(or in Marthewenok, co. Carmarthen), West Newton (in Manorbier ?) and
Grove (by Pembroke), to supply the deficiencies of the manors of
Yazor, Llanfihangel, Talyllyn and Castell Lloyd); C 1/969/54 (Chancery
Proceeding dated 1538-1544: Richard Cornewall, esquire, son of Richard
Cornewall, knight, and Jenett his wife, granddaughter and heir of John
Wogan, knight, v. John Wogan, esquire.: Detention of deeds relating to
the manors of Castell Lloyd and Llanfihangel, and messuages and land
in Newton, Grove and elsewhere, and forcible occupation of a burgage
and garden in Hereford); SC 8/344 (Wales Petition E.1315 dated c. 1495
by Griffith Vaghan ap Eynon and Mawde his wife rquesting that Sir
Richard Croftes, treasurer of the prince's household, be ordered to
surcease from local proceedings and to Henry Wogan of Slebech to
deliver deeds required to vindicate rights of petitioner's wife and
John Wogan her son) (abstracts of documents available online at
http://www.catalogue.nationalarchives.gov.uk/search.asp).

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 17:54:02    Tittel: Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) Svar med Sitat

Hi Adrian,
A clarification of my previous post:
PRO record E 210/2694 which discusses the 1477 defeasance, clearly
shows that the parents of Sir Thomas Vaughan who was Chamberlain to
the king, and who was beheaded in 1483, to be Robert and Margaret
Vaugh[a]n. SO NO CONNECTION TO TRETOWER IS SHOWN. I don't mean to
imply no connection exists, just that it is not apparent.

Now, three items "cut and pasted" from your last post, along with
excerpts from an Oct. 2007 posting by Doug Richardson found in the SGM
archives.

Sitat:
indenture for 20 men ran from 18 Oct 1450 to at least Michaelmas 1452; the master of
the king's ordnance, Thomas Vaughan, provided weapons early in Oct 1450.;

and

Sitat:
p 864: Following Wm VI capture (10 July 1460) most of his household was
replaced by Yorkists which penetrated below the senior levels, Thomas Vaughan was
appointed master of the king's ordinance;
p 877: York's servant Thomas Vaughan was keeper of the great wardrobe by 1
September 1460;

and

Sitat:
Edward Stanley 1st Baron Monteagle m2 before 25 Nov 1501 Elizabeth (-15 Jan
1514/5) d of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower, co Brecon and widow of John,
Lord Grey of Wilton, and relict of Sir Thomas Cokesey (otherwise Greville or
Grevile). She d. 15 Jan 1514/5.
(004 (CP) Vol IX p 115 (Monteagle)) John Audeley, knight, lord Audeley. v. Sir >Thomas Vaughan, knight, husband of Alianore, previously the wife of Sir Thomas >Broun. Land called `Walsted' and `Huddes' at Lindfield, late of Sir Thomas Broun, >knight, attainted.


Speaking of the Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483), Doug Richardson
posted:
........ Esquire of the Body to King Edward IV, 1450-1459, 1462-1475,
Master of the Ordnance, 1450-1461, Burgess (M.P.) for Marlboro,
1455-1456, Keeper of the Great Wardrobe, 1460- 1461, Sheriff of Surrey
and Sussex, 1466-1467, Treasurer of the King's Chamber,
1467-1482..........

and Doug continued:

......... He was knighted 18 April 1475. In the period, 1475-1480, or
1483-
1485, John Audley, Knt., Lord Audley sued Sir Thomas Vaughan, husband
of Eleanor, previously the wife of Sir Thomas Browne, in Chancery
regarding land called Walsted and Huddes in Lindfield, Sussex, which
property was formerly held by Sir Thomas Browne.....

Regards
Tom Dunn

On Feb 22, 2:42 pm, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Sitat:
Well it looks as though I will have to go through my Thomas Vaughans and
work out which is which. Here are a few more notes I have gathered.

Adrian

Thomas Vaughan.
p. 363: Henry Beauchamp, earl of Warwick died June 1446 at the age of 21,
and his sole daughter and heir died aged six less than three years later. As a
result, in the week beginning 12 June 1446 scors of appointments on the
Warwick estate were confirmed by the crown and the late duke's properties were
farmed or given to temporary custodians. Almost without exception, the
recipients were either king's knights (like William Beauchamp), king's esquites
(like Thomas Vaughan and Edmund Mountford, a former Warwick servant), king's
serjeants (...), or other royal servants ... yet others were associated with the
queen's establishment ...;
p. 441: In the Parl of 1449-50, the Isle of Wight's security was giving
grounds for concern. In the summer of 1449 the Isle had been terrorized by John
Newport, the duke of York's steward and had been discharged from office. A
small company was mustered to defend Carisbrooke castle, placed on a five day
footing under one of the king's serjeants-at-arms, John Baker. His
indenture for 20 men ran from 18 Oct 1450 to at least Michaelmas 1452; the master of
the king's ordnance, Thomas Vaughan, provided weapons early in Oct 1450.;
p. 560; Interference in the lives and careers of aliens led some of the
more prosperous - even the occasional Welshman who was worried about Henry IV's
statutes - to take steps to secure their position. William ap Gwilyn ap
Gruffydd, whose mother was Joan, daughter of Sir William Stanley, and Thomas
Vaughan, who was sponsored by the duke of Somerset and Adam Moleyns.;
p 825; The attainder was the pricipal business of the month-long parliament
(which was dissolve only five days before Christms 1460 and followed the
captire of king Henry VI by the Yorkists. Those attainted included Thomas
Vaughan ... for their machinations in London.;
p 847; Wm VI held a great council at Coventry at th end of June. The
principal absentees were openly accused. This action is likely to have
precipitated the armed clashes of 1459. The king and his household appear to have
reached Coventry by 9 May. Sir William Oldhall and Thomas Vaughan, two of York's
councillors, may have been responsible for sending news of the council to
Calais from London on 4 July.;
p 864: Following Wm VI capture (10 July 1460) most of his household was
replaced by Yorkists which penetrated below the senior levels, Thomas Vaughan was
appointed master of the king's ordinance;
p 877: York's servant Thomas Vaughan was keeper of the great wardrobe by 1
September 1460;
p 882: Following the battle of St Alban's, 17 Feb 1461 Warwick Yorkist army
was beaten, one of those to flee was Thomas Vaughan
(The Reign of Henry VI (Sutton publishing 1998, 1st pub 1981))

pp 210-12: On 30 Apr 1483, at Stony Stratford. ... Close by (the boy king)
Edward V were his aged chamberlain Sir Thomas Vaughan and his half brother Lord
Richard Grey. ... Vaughan, Grey and a few others surrounded Edward as he
retired to his lodgings ... Richard Er Warwick (later Rd III) ... Certain ministers
about the dead King, he said, had ruined his health by encouraging him in his
excesses. These men must be removed from power in order that they might not
play the same game with the son as with the father. ... Lord Grey and Sir Thomas
Vaugham were promptly arrested.; 216 Vaughan was transferred to Pontefract;
221 Richard proposed that a charge of treason be brought against Anthony
Woodville, Earl Rivers, Vaughan and Grey, but the council agreed upon a
compramise. No specific charges were brought, but all were of one mind that Rivers
and his associates must be ketp in prison; 252-3: On 24 June [1483] Rivers was
escourted to Pontefract. Grey had been brought from Middleham Castle. The
next day the three men went to the block.
(Richard The Third by Paul Murray Kendall, 1955)

p. 597....In 1476 Sir Thomas Vaughan was appointed surveyor and demiser of the
revenues of the Norfolk inheritance (John duke of Norfolk deceased).
Vaughan (esquire of the body and keeper of the great wardrobe to Henry VI) had been
Edward's treasurer of the Chamber, and an indispensable household figure who
in 1473 was made chamberlain to the young Prince Edward and was a member of
the prince's council. He had a house in Stepney and was co-lessee with the
prince of Wales of another which he had built within the precinct of
Westminster Abbey `for his dwelling and for the pleasure of the king and his consort
Elizabeth and their son'. {fn. Cal. Pat. R 1467-1477, p 455. Vaughan's
commission, several as administrators of lands that had fallen in to the
Exchequer, are numerous.} It was characteristic of Edward's system to employ in his
household a man who served as sheriff and on the quorum of Surrey and Sussex,
thus linking country and central administrations. ... p. 613
(The Fifteenth Century, 1399-1485 by E.F. Jacob (1st pub 1961))

Vaughan, Thomas (KB 18 April 1475)
(Shaw's Knight's)

Sir Thomas Vaughan buried in Westminster.
(052 (John Stow's survay of London) p 410)

Edward Stanley 1st Baron Monteagle m2 before 25 Nov 1501 Elizabeth (-15 Jan
1514/5) d of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower, co Brecon and widow of John,
Lord Grey of Wilton, and relict of Sir Thomas Cokesey (otherwise Greville or
Grevile). She d. 15 Jan 1514/5.
(004 (CP) Vol IX p 115 (Monteagle))

John Audeley, knight, lord Audeley. v. Sir Thomas Vaughan, knight, husband
of Alianore, previously the wife of Sir Thomas Broun. Land called `Walsted'
and `Huddes' at Lindfield, late of Sir Thomas Broun, knight, attainted.
Sussex.
(PRO C 1/59/24)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 18:29:03    Tittel: Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) Svar med Sitat

Included in my last message:

Edward Stanley 1st Baron Monteagle m2 before 25 Nov 1501 Elizabeth (-15 Jan
1514/5) d of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower, co Brecon and widow of John,
Lord Grey of Wilton, and relict of Sir Thomas Cokesey (otherwise Greville or
Grevile). She d. 15 Jan 1514/5.
(004 (CP) Vol IX p 115 (Monteagle))

The Sir Thomas Vaughan above is the one who was executed in 1483 together
with his in-law Richard Grey Ld Grey of Wilton, so I guess CP has erred in
calling him "of Tretower"

By the way Thomas Stanley 2nd Bn Monteagle (son of the above) m1 c1528 Mary
d of Charles Brandon Dk of Suffolk by his m1 Anne d of Sir Anthony Browne, a
son of Eleanor (Sir Thomas Vaughan's wife) by her m1

Adrian
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 19:07:22    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpmsn7$jkb$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Sitat:
deemsbill@aol.com wrote:

That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army force
available for emergencies, extra to the English standing army. The 1757
Militia Act created a more professional force, with better organisation,
better uniforms and better record-keeping.

The English (later British) Empire had many militia units, including
dozens in England itself. America was thus one of the many British
territories which raised its own milita units and these units were the
primary British army units in the early days of the colony. To that end,
all the colonial militia units were British colonial units and the
soldiers within them were British colonial militia soldiers. Including
George Washington.

There are some interesting distinctions (as there were distinctions between
the status of the various American colonies).

Virginia was a "Royal" colony, however, the Regiment in which Washington had
held a commission was a colonial regiment, raised, equipped and paid by the
colony from colonial revenue. Certainly, the militia of the Mohawk Valley
in New York had no Crown connection, to the point that it seems to have
often refused orders issued by Regulars

Contrasting with colonial militia were units like Roger's Rangers, raised
"extra-colonially" and apparently equipped/paid from the Establishment.
Since they weren't regulars, were they militia?

I seem to recall that Boston's Artillery Company was not even a part of the
Massachusetts colonial militia

Throughout the Empire there were militia units the status of which remain
less than clear. In the latter half of the 18th century, a naval militia
unit raised in India would have been subordinate to the EIC, not the Crown.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 19:29:01    Tittel: Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) Svar med Sitat

On Feb 22, 9:27 am, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Sitat:
Included in my last message:

Edward Stanley 1st Baron Monteagle m2 before 25 Nov 1501 Elizabeth (-15 Jan
1514/5) d of Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower, co Brecon and widow of John,
Lord Grey of Wilton, and relict of Sir Thomas Cokesey (otherwise Greville or
Grevile). She d. 15 Jan 1514/5.
(004 (CP) Vol IX p 115 (Monteagle))

The Sir Thomas Vaughan above is the one who was executed in 1483 together
with his in-law Richard Grey Ld Grey of Wilton, so I guess CP has erred in
calling him "of Tretower"

By the way Thomas Stanley 2nd Bn Monteagle (son of the above) m1 c1528 Mary
d of Charles Brandon Dk of Suffolk by his m1 Anne d of Sir Anthony Browne, a
son of Eleanor (Sir Thomas Vaughan's wife) by her m1

Adrian

What is the evidence that indicates that Elizabeth Vaughan, wife of
John, Lord Grey of Wilton, and Edward Stanley, 1st Baron Monteagle,
was the dau. of the Sir Thomas Vaughan who was executed 1483 rather
than Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower? The biographies of the executed
Sir Thomas do not give this daughter among his children, whereas at
least one secondary source (Clark's Limbus Patrum cited previously)
does include Elizabeth among the children of Sir Thomas Vaughan of
Tretower.

Also, CP does not show a Richard Grey, Lord Grey of Wilton, in this
time frame. Was he perhaps of one of the several other branches of
the Grey family? Is he specifically referred to someplace as an in-
law of the executed Sir Thomas?
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 19:36:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

"TMOliver" <tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:47bf0ec2$0$24082$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Sitat:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpmsn7$jkb$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
deemsbill@aol.com wrote:

That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army force
available for emergencies, extra to the English standing army. The 1757
Militia Act created a more professional force, with better organisation,
better uniforms and better record-keeping.

The English (later British) Empire had many militia units, including
dozens in England itself. America was thus one of the many British
territories which raised its own milita units and these units were the
primary British army units in the early days of the colony. To that end,
all the colonial militia units were British colonial units and the
soldiers within them were British colonial militia soldiers. Including
George Washington.

There are some interesting distinctions (as there were distinctions
between the status of the various American colonies).

Virginia was a "Royal" colony, however, the Regiment in which Washington
had held a commission was a colonial regiment, raised, equipped and paid
by the colony from colonial revenue. Certainly, the militia of the Mohawk
Valley in New York had no Crown connection, to the point that it seems to
have often refused orders issued by Regulars

Contrasting with colonial militia were units like Roger's Rangers, raised
"extra-colonially" and apparently equipped/paid from the Establishment.
Since they weren't regulars, were they militia?

I seem to recall that Boston's Artillery Company was not even a part of
the Massachusetts colonial militia

Throughout the Empire there were militia units the status of which remain
less than clear. In the latter half of the 18th century, a naval militia
unit raised in India would have been subordinate to the EIC, not the
Crown.

The HEIC (never forget the 'H', although they could usually be relied on
not to act in that manner) had their own navy, the Bombay Marine, which
existed until, I think, 1833 so it's not surprising .

The status of Indiaman is also somewhat confused as they're as heavily armed
as a warship of the same period, probably built of teak rather than oak and
so a touch tougher and were only deficient in crew, but trained male
passengers as gun crews to make up the deficiencies.

You have to remember that John Company was one of the first QUANGOs and all
the directors were appointed by the government and it functioned, more or
less, as a government agency.

Rogers Rangers were probably considered 'irregulars on establishment' the
same as the Probyn's Horse (1st Sikh Irregular Horse) and the Frontier
Scouts of the NWF, for pay purposes, which, in the end, is all that
matters...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 20:16:03    Tittel: Re: Clifford of Mapledurham? Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 2/22/2008 5:49:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
nugget@bordernet.com.au writes:

How, then, does
her sister Juliana take Mapledurham to her husband William Bardolf?


She doesn't.



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 20:17:04    Tittel: Re: Clifford of Mapledurham? Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 2/22/2008 5:49:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
nugget@bordernet.com.au writes:

Assuming the expected child was born post mortem in 1239 and named
Maud/Matilda, she would, with her husband Roger de Clifford, have sworn
a writ against Christiana Ledet prior to Trinity term 27 Henry III
[1243]. That scenario doesn't seem feasible to me.>>
---------------------------




I agree, but we'd need to ask whether there are other examples where a man
acts alongwith his infant-contracted-wife, as opposed to an adult-wife.
Will



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 21:29:02    Tittel: Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 22/02/2008 18:30:23 GMT Standard Time,
jhigginsgen@yahoo.com writes:

Sitat:

What is the evidence that indicates that Elizabeth Vaughan, wife of

John, Lord Grey of Wilton, and Edward Stanley, 1st Baron Monteagle,
was the dau. of the Sir Thomas Vaughan who was executed 1483 rather
than Sir Thomas Vaughan of Tretower? The biographies of the executed
Sir Thomas do not give this daughter among his children, whereas at
least one secondary source (Clark's Limbus Patrum cited previously)
does include Elizabeth among the children of Sir Thomas Vaughan of
Tretower.

Also, CP does not show a Richard Grey, Lord Grey of Wilton, in this
time frame. Was he perhaps of one of the several other branches of
the Grey family? Is he specifically referred to someplace as an in-
law of the executed Sir Thomas?
Sitat:


I have made a blunder here. In _Richard The Third_ by Paul Murray Kendall,
1955 it stated that "...Edward V were his aged chamberlain Sir Thomas Vaughan
and his half brother Lord Richard Grey". I took that to mean that Lord
Richard Grey was half brother to Sir Thomas Vaughan, but the author means that he
was half brother to Edward V, this Lord Richard Grey being full brother to
Thomas Grey 1st Marquis of Dorset

Sorry about that.


Adrian
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 22:04:01    Tittel: Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) Svar med Sitat

Sir Thomas Vaughan (died 1483), husband of Eleanor Arundel, had no
daughter named Elizabeth.

Peter Batrum shows that the Elizabeth Vaughan in question was actually
daughter of Sir Thomas Vaughan, of Tretower, Breconshire, by his 1st
wife, Cecily [Reference: Bartrum, Welsh Gens. 1400-1500 3 (1983): 462
(Drymbenog 2(C2) pedigree: "Elsbeth [Vaughan] d. 1514 = Edward Stanley
Baron Monteagle, b. c. 1460, d. 1523")].

Elizabeth Vaughan married (1st) Thomas Cokesey (otherwise Greville),
Knt., of Cooksey, Worcestershire (died 6 March 1497/Cool; (2nd) before
26 Nov. 1498 (date of indenture) Sir John Grey, 8th Lord Grey of
Wilton (died 3 April 1499); and (3rd) before 25 Nov. 1501 Edward
Stanley, Knt., afterwards Lord Mounteagle (died 6 or 7 April 1523).
She died 15 Jan. 1514/5.

Desc. Cat. of Ancient Deeds, 1 (1890): 106-116 includes an abstract of
an indenture from John Grevill to Richard Emson dated 26 Nov. 1498
which mentions "lady Grey, late the wife of Sir Thomas Cokesey."

For the following weblink for this item:

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=64201&strquery=%22 Sir%20Thomas%20Cokesey%22

Additional material on Elizabeth Vaughan and her 2nd husband, Sir John
Grey, may be found in the following work:

Biancalana, The Fee Tail and the Common Recovery in Medieval England
(2001): 413, 432-433.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 22:09:03    Tittel: Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) Svar med Sitat

On Feb 21, 8:49 am, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:
Sitat:
Returned oyer and terminer commission, Heref, before John earl of  Lincoln,
William Huse, Robert Willoughby and associates at Hereford on 16 May  1486,
under commission of 11 May 1486 for all treasons, etc in Herefordshire  (CPR
1485-94, 106): file, treason trials of Thomas Vaughan late of Tretower in  the
Marchch of Wales and others

Is it necessarily obvious that the above Thomas is now living? I
don't find that quite compelling yet.

Will Johnson
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 22:34:02    Tittel: Re: Children of Sir Thomas Vaughan (died 1483) Svar med Sitat

The daughter of Anne Vaughan and Sir John Wogan called Joan here is
called Jonet in other sources and was wife of Dafydd Laugharne (son of
Thomas Laugharne and Elsbeth Eliot) of Sain Ffred, Pembrokeshire. See:
The British Genealogist: Comprosing the Gentry in Caermarthanshire,
Cardiganshire, Pembrokeshire, Glamorganshire and Breconshire C-46 (St.
Brides).

HS

On Feb 22, 8:46 am, Douglas Richardson <royalances...@msn.com> wrote:
<snip>
Sitat:
As for Anne Vaughan, the daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas Vaughan,
my research indicates that she married 15 March 1484 (date of grant)
John Wogan, K.B., Knight of the King's Chamber, of Wiston,
Pembrokeshire, son and heir of John Wogan, Knt., of Wiston,
Pembrokeshire, by Maud, daughter and heiress of William Clement.  They
had six sons, Henry, John, Knt., William, David, Robert, and Thomas,
and four daughters, Maud, Anne (wife of James Bowen, Knt.), Joan, and
Elizabeth (wife of Richard ap Harry ap Bowen).  In 1484 King Richard
III granted John and his wife, Anne, and their heirs male the manors
of Flete and Holbeton, Devon and lands in Ditteridge, Wiltshire.  In
1501 William Perrott, Esq. authorized him and William Adams the
younger, Gent. to deliver seisin of messuages and lands in Tenby,
Pembrokeshire to his son and heir, Owen Perrott, Gent.  In 1519 he was
granted custody of 1/4th of the possessions of David Mathew and his
wife, Alice, both deceased, during the minority of his granddaughter,
Joan, daughter and heiress of his late son, Henry Wogan.  Sir John
Wogan died 6 July 1526.

snip
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 23:31:35    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

TMOliver wrote:
Sitat:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpmsn7$jkb$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

deemsbill@aol.com wrote:

That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army force
available for emergencies, extra to the English standing army. The 1757
Militia Act created a more professional force, with better organisation,
better uniforms and better record-keeping.

The English (later British) Empire had many militia units, including
dozens in England itself. America was thus one of the many British
territories which raised its own milita units and these units were the
primary British army units in the early days of the colony. To that end,
all the colonial militia units were British colonial units and the
soldiers within them were British colonial militia soldiers. Including
George Washington.


There are some interesting distinctions (as there were distinctions between
the status of the various American colonies).

Virginia was a "Royal" colony, however, the Regiment in which Washington had
held a commission was a colonial regiment, raised, equipped and paid by the
colony from colonial revenue. Certainly, the militia of the Mohawk Valley
in New York had no Crown connection, to the point that it seems to have
often refused orders issued by Regulars

None of the militias, in England or anywhere else, were recognised by
The Crown. But, if needs be, The Crown would use them, through their patron.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 22 Feb 2008 23:51:46    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

Renia wrote:
Sitat:
TMOliver wrote:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpmsn7$jkb$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

deemsbill@aol.com wrote:

That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army force
available for emergencies, extra to the English standing army. The
1757 Militia Act created a more professional force, with better
organisation, better uniforms and better record-keeping.

The English (later British) Empire had many militia units, including
dozens in England itself. America was thus one of the many British
territories which raised its own milita units and these units were
the primary British army units in the early days of the colony. To
that end, all the colonial militia units were British colonial
units and the soldiers within them were British colonial militia
soldiers. Including George Washington.


There are some interesting distinctions (as there were distinctions
between the status of the various American colonies).

Virginia was a "Royal" colony, however, the Regiment in which
Washington had held a commission was a colonial regiment, raised,
equipped and paid by the colony from colonial revenue. Certainly,
the militia of the Mohawk Valley in New York had no Crown
connection, to the point that it seems to have often refused orders
issued by Regulars

None of the militias, in England or anywhere else, were recognised by
The Crown. But, if needs be, The Crown would use them, through their
patron.

Nonsense. The Lord Lieutenant has command of the militia, volunteers, etc of
the County. Similarly, a colonial Governor is also Commander-in-Chief. But
we are talking about a Regiment raised by Virginia - not the militia
(well-regulated or otherwise...)
--
John Briggs
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 00:26:13    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpnift$sj7$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

Sitat:
None of the militias, in England or anywhere else, were recognised by The
Crown. But, if needs be, The Crown would use them, through their patron.

You're telling me that Yeomanry Regiment officers don't hold a proper
commission?

I beg to differ...

It may well be one issued by the Lord Lieutenant of the County, but it is
still a valid commission.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 00:29:51    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

John Briggs wrote:

Sitat:
Renia wrote:

TMOliver wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpmsn7$jkb$1@mouse.otenet.gr...


deemsbill@aol.com wrote:


That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army force
available for emergencies, extra to the English standing army. The
1757 Militia Act created a more professional force, with better
organisation, better uniforms and better record-keeping.

The English (later British) Empire had many militia units, including
dozens in England itself. America was thus one of the many British
territories which raised its own milita units and these units were
the primary British army units in the early days of the colony. To
that end, all the colonial militia units were British colonial
units and the soldiers within them were British colonial militia
soldiers. Including George Washington.


There are some interesting distinctions (as there were distinctions
between the status of the various American colonies).

Virginia was a "Royal" colony, however, the Regiment in which
Washington had held a commission was a colonial regiment, raised,
equipped and paid by the colony from colonial revenue. Certainly,
the militia of the Mohawk Valley in New York had no Crown
connection, to the point that it seems to have often refused orders
issued by Regulars

None of the militias, in England or anywhere else, were recognised by
The Crown. But, if needs be, The Crown would use them, through their
patron.


Nonsense. The Lord Lieutenant has command of the militia, volunteers, etc of
the County. Similarly, a colonial Governor is also Commander-in-Chief. But
we are talking about a Regiment raised by Virginia - not the militia
(well-regulated or otherwise...)

I'm not talking of the present, but of the mid-18th century. They
weren't Government sponsored militias but raised by private
subscription. However, the worthy who raised his militia might be
persuaded to let his militia act on Government business.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 00:30:47    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

William Black wrote:

Sitat:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpnift$sj7$1@mouse.otenet.gr...


None of the militias, in England or anywhere else, were recognised by The
Crown. But, if needs be, The Crown would use them, through their patron.


You're telling me that Yeomanry Regiment officers don't hold a proper
commission?

No. I'm not talking in the present tense. I'm talking of the 18th
century militia.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 00:41:09    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpnlus$tsf$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
Sitat:
William Black wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpnift$sj7$1@mouse.otenet.gr...


None of the militias, in England or anywhere else, were recognised by The
Crown. But, if needs be, The Crown would use them, through their patron.


You're telling me that Yeomanry Regiment officers don't hold a proper
commission?

No. I'm not talking in the present tense. I'm talking of the 18th century
militia.

You could have some fun talking in the present tense as well.

These days County Yeomanry officers hold the Queen's commission.

In the eighteenth century things changed several times.

regiments started out as private ventures, although that was very old
fashioned by then, by the start of the Napoleonic Wars the regular
regiments were reformed and so usually numbered. The Yeomanry who fought at
Waterloo were officered by men who held full commissions.

I would have to check what the position was as regards yeomanry in 1776,
but as it's you I just can't be bothered...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 01:00:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

William Black wrote:

Sitat:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpnlus$tsf$2@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:


"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpnift$sj7$1@mouse.otenet.gr...



None of the militias, in England or anywhere else, were recognised by The
Crown. But, if needs be, The Crown would use them, through their patron.


You're telling me that Yeomanry Regiment officers don't hold a proper
commission?

No. I'm not talking in the present tense. I'm talking of the 18th century
militia.


You could have some fun talking in the present tense as well.

These days County Yeomanry officers hold the Queen's commission.

In the eighteenth century things changed several times.

Indeed.

Sitat:
regiments started out as private ventures, although that was very old
fashioned by then,

Quite, but they continued for a while.

Sitat:
by the start of the Napoleonic Wars the regular
regiments were reformed and so usually numbered. The Yeomanry who fought at
Waterloo were officered by men who held full commissions.

I would have to check what the position was as regards yeomanry in 1776,
but as it's you I just can't be bothered...

I'm talking earlier than 1776.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 01:24:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

On Feb 22, 7:00 pm, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Sitat:
William Black wrote:
"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpnlus$tsf$2@mouse.otenet.gr...

William Black wrote:

"Renia" <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpnift$sj7$1@mouse.otenet.gr...

None of the militias, in England or anywhere else, were recognised by The
Crown. But, if needs be, The Crown would use them, through their patron.

You're telling me that Yeomanry Regiment officers don't hold a proper
commission?

No. I'm not talking in the present tense. I'm talking of the 18th century
militia.

You could have some fun talking in the present tense as well.

These days County Yeomanry officers hold the Queen's commission.

In the eighteenth century things changed several times.

Indeed.

regiments started out as private ventures, although that was very old
fashioned by then,

Quite, but they continued for a while.

by the start of the Napoleonic Wars the regular
regiments were reformed and so usually numbered. The Yeomanry who fought at
Waterloo were officered by men who held full commissions.

I would have to check what the position was as regards yeomanry in 1776,
but as it's you I just can't be bothered...

I'm talking earlier than 1776.

The colonial militias were of two sorts, local and colony. The smaller
colonies had militias, usually to fight Indians, that met perhaps once
a year. The bigger colonies, Virginia as an example, had county
militias and were almost like social clubs, with the gentry as the
officers, sometimes sporting out their "boys" in odd ball uniforms.
There was a third kind that was all colonies together, Rogers Rangers
and the other similar groups that did reconnaisance and "Indian
relations" jobs. Many of the colony militias were still extant in
1775, it was to take a militia group's powder at Concord that started
the Revolution, and became units in the Continental army.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2001_winter_spring/colonial_militia .html
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 01:47:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

Theodore Roosevelt raised his own regiment, with Colonel Leonard Wood as
commander, as late as 1898 -- the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry
Regiment -- the Rough Riders.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_Riders>

He wanted to do the same thing in 1917, when the United States entered The
Great War [World War I], and lead them into battle, but he was turned down
by President Woodrow Wilson.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 01:48:09    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter Jones, 2
January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 03:00:35    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...
Sitat:
"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter Jones,
2
January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)




he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 05:16:01    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
Sitat:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...

"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter Jones,
2
January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)

he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.

many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia.  This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army? No revisionist history, please.

aaron
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 06:08:01    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

<AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
Sitat:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...

"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would
wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter
Jones,
2
January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)

he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.

many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army? No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get injured so
in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 08:45:03    Tittel: Re: Sir Thomas Vaughan (d. 1483) Svar med Sitat

Hi Folks,
from 'Vaughan family of Tretower Court' [NLW], speaking of Sir Thomas
Vaughan:

..... "He gave Richard III strong support against the rebellion of the
duke of Buckingham in Oct. 1483. Henceforward, he is styled knight in
the records, and he was granted the stewardship of the lordship of
Brecknock, 4 March 1484. He seems to have acted cautiously during the
months preceding the battle of Bosworth, and he obtained a general
pardon from Henry VII, 2 April 1486."

Therefore, he is alive in 1484, acting cautious prior to August 1485,
and seemingly alive in 1486. I do agree that it is possible he could
have died prior to the pardon.

Regards
Tom Dunn, Kilbrittain, Co. Cork, Ireland

On Feb 22, 9:07 pm, wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com> wrote:
Sitat:
On Feb 21, 8:49 am, ADRIANCHANNIN...@aol.com wrote:

Returned oyer and terminer commission, Heref, before John earl of  Lincoln,
William Huse, Robert Willoughby and associates at Hereford on 16 May  1486,
under commission of 11 May 1486 for all treasons, etc in Herefordshire  (CPR
1485-94, 106): file, treason trials of Thomas Vaughan late of Tretower in  the
Marchch of Wales and others

Is it necessarily obvious that the above Thomas is now living?  I
don't find that quite compelling yet.

Will Johnson
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 11:12:02    Tittel: Re: Clifford of Mapledurham? Svar med Sitat

Is your judgement not clouded by a wish that through Gournay one would
connect to a nice set of ancestors? You're quite critical to the
facts, arguments and suggestions that have been put forward and kind
of clinging to your theory that the unborn child of 1238 was identical
to Mathilde, the in 1241/42 mentioned wife of Roger II de Clifford.

To complicate things one might even suggest that Roger II was married
1. 1241/42 to Mathilde N.
2. bef. ... 1251 to N.N. de Gournay, born 1238/39.

That leaves still the question who was then the mother of Roger III.
We know that he was the father of Robert Lord Clifford, born 1274.
Robert was the name of his maternal grandmother. We have no certainty
that Robert was the eldest son. After three generations of Roger's it
would be not unlikely that Roger III would have name his eldest son
after his own father Roger. Let us - for the sake of the argument -
assume that a child by this name was born 1273 and this child was the
eldest child of his parents. That would place the marriage of Roger
III c 1272. Someone in the past provided the marriage year 1269. This
may originate from onder andere a book by Sanders als I saw in a post
from Doug Smith from 2003:

Sitat:
I have very little info on the Vipont/Viteripont family. The Robert
you refer to is presumably Robert II de Vipont, Lord of Westmoreland
who died 7 jun 1264
MC 5:8, Sanders, pps 103-104, CP V: 433-445, Banks, Baronies in Fee,
II: 78.

Has anyone acces to these reference works? It would be nice if the
year 1269 could be based on facts or definitely rejected.

The next question one might ask is - or better said - how old was
Roger III when he married or when he became father? There are all kind
of approches possible. A personal rule of the thumb or a comparison
with the known marriage ages of the younger generations? One might
argue that Robert Clifford was 21 when he married and his younger son
Robert about 23 so grandfather Roger III might as well been in his
early twenties when he married. But Roger might have been older or
younger them an early twentier. Who would be right?

A next question the might arise would be for instance when N.N. de
Gournay, born 1238/39, reached her years of puberty/ procreation? One
might say that we might count on an avarage age around 15 years,
though there are exceptions known of girls becoming mother between 12
and 15.

So all in all thats a lot of ifs and uncertainties on the path of the
hypothesis that Roger II de Clifford married N.N. de Gournay, a
hypothetical younger daughter of Hugh de Gournay and Mathilde.

For that is another question. Was the unborn child of the widow
Mathilde a daughter? It might have been a son that died as a baby
shortly afterwards.

All in all it seems logical to assume that Roger II married Mathilde,
the widow of Hugh de Gournay. Not only logical but less troublesome as
well.

Hans Vogels

On 22 feb, 20:14, WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Sitat:
In a message dated 2/22/2008 5:49:18 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  

nug...@bordernet.com.au writes:

Assuming  the expected child was born post mortem in 1239 and named  
Maud/Matilda, she would, with her husband Roger de Clifford, have sworn  
a writ against Christiana Ledet prior to Trinity term 27 Henry III  
[1243]. That scenario doesn't seem feasible to  me.
---------------------------

I agree, but we'd need to ask whether there are other examples where a man  
acts alongwith his infant-contracted-wife, as opposed to an adult-wife.
Will

**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.      
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam ...
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 11:26:04    Tittel: Re: Bill Safire Stands Corrected Re: He/Him Svar med Sitat

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message

Some Scottish culture, courtesy of Spencer Hines.
Jottings of New York
Oh, mighty city of New York, you are wonderful to behold--
Your buildings are magnificent-- the truth be it told--
They were the only thing that seemed to arrest my eye,
Because many of them are thirteen storeys high;
And as for Central Park, it is lovely to be seen--
Especially in the summer season when its shrubberies are green
And the Burns Statue is there to be seen,
Surrounded by trees on the beautiful sward so green;
Also Shakespeare and the immortal Sir Walter Scott,
Which by Scotchmen and Englishmen will never be forgot.

There are people on the Sabbath day in thousands resort--
All lov'd, in conversation, and eager for sport;
And some of them viewing the wild beasts there,
While the joyous shouts of children does rend the air--
And also beautiful black swans, I do declare.

And there's beautiful boats to be seen there,
And joyous shouts of children does rend the air,
While the boats sail along with them o'er Lohengrin Lake,
And fare is 5 cents for children, and adults ten is all they take.

And there's also summer-house shades, and merry-go-rounds
And with the merry laughter of the children the Park resounds,
During the live-long Sabbath day
Enjoying themselves at the merry-go-round play.

Then there's the elevated railroads about five storeys high,
Which the inhabitants can hear night and day passing by;
Of, such a mass of people there daily do throng--
No less than five 100,000 daily pass along;
And all along the city you can get for five cents--
And, believe me, among the passengers there's few discontent.

And the top of the houses are mostly all flat,
And in the warm weather the people gather to chat;
Besides, on the housetops they dry their clothes;
And, also, many people all night on the housetops repose.

And numerous ships end steamboats are there to be seen,
Sailing along the East River water, which is very green--
Which is certainly a most beautiful sight
To see them sailing o'er the smooth water day and night.

And as for Brooklyn Bridge, it's a very great height,
And fills the stranger's heart with wonder at first sight;
And with all its loftiness I venture to say
It cannot surpass the new railway bridge of the Silvery Tay.

And there's also ten thousand rumsellers there--
Oh, wonderful to think of, I do declare!
To accommodate the people of New York therein,
And to encourage them to commit all sorts of sin

And on the Sabbath day ye will see many a man
Going for beer with a big tin can,
And seems proud to be seen carrying home the beer
To treat his neighbours and his family dear.

Then at night numbers of the people dance and sing,
Making the walls of their houses to ring
With their songs and dancing on Sabbath night,
Which I witnessed with disgust, and fled from the sight.

And with regard to New York and the sights I did see--
Believe me, I never saw such sights in Dundee;
And the morning I sailed from the city of New York
My heart it felt as light as a cork.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 11:27:02    Tittel: Re: Bill Safire Stands Corrected Re: He/Him Svar med Sitat

"The Highlander" <micheil@shaw.ca> wrote in message news:06509b79-0d3b-

Some Scottish culture, courtesy of Spencer Hines.
Jottings of New York
Oh, mighty city of New York, you are wonderful to behold--
Your buildings are magnificent-- the truth be it told--
They were the only thing that seemed to arrest my eye,
Because many of them are thirteen storeys high;
And as for Central Park, it is lovely to be seen--
Especially in the summer season when its shrubberies are green
And the Burns Statue is there to be seen,
Surrounded by trees on the beautiful sward so green;
Also Shakespeare and the immortal Sir Walter Scott,
Which by Scotchmen and Englishmen will never be forgot.

There are people on the Sabbath day in thousands resort--
All lov'd, in conversation, and eager for sport;
And some of them viewing the wild beasts there,
While the joyous shouts of children does rend the air--
And also beautiful black swans, I do declare.

And there's beautiful boats to be seen there,
And joyous shouts of children does rend the air,
While the boats sail along with them o'er Lohengrin Lake,
And fare is 5 cents for children, and adults ten is all they take.

And there's also summer-house shades, and merry-go-rounds
And with the merry laughter of the children the Park resounds,
During the live-long Sabbath day
Enjoying themselves at the merry-go-round play.

Then there's the elevated railroads about five storeys high,
Which the inhabitants can hear night and day passing by;
Of, such a mass of people there daily do throng--
No less than five 100,000 daily pass along;
And all along the city you can get for five cents--
And, believe me, among the passengers there's few discontent.

And the top of the houses are mostly all flat,
And in the warm weather the people gather to chat;
Besides, on the housetops they dry their clothes;
And, also, many people all night on the housetops repose.

And numerous ships end steamboats are there to be seen,
Sailing along the East River water, which is very green--
Which is certainly a most beautiful sight
To see them sailing o'er the smooth water day and night.

And as for Brooklyn Bridge, it's a very great height,
And fills the stranger's heart with wonder at first sight;
And with all its loftiness I venture to say
It cannot surpass the new railway bridge of the Silvery Tay.

And there's also ten thousand rumsellers there--
Oh, wonderful to think of, I do declare!
To accommodate the people of New York therein,
And to encourage them to commit all sorts of sin

And on the Sabbath day ye will see many a man
Going for beer with a big tin can,
And seems proud to be seen carrying home the beer
To treat his neighbours and his family dear.

Then at night numbers of the people dance and sing,
Making the walls of their houses to ring
With their songs and dancing on Sabbath night,
Which I witnessed with disgust, and fled from the sight.

And with regard to New York and the sights I did see--
Believe me, I never saw such sights in Dundee;
And the morning I sailed from the city of New York
My heart it felt as light as a cork.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 11:27:41    Tittel: Re: Bill Safire Stands Corrected Re: He/Him Svar med Sitat

"sandy58" <aleckie60@googlemail.com> wrote in message news:09557ca9-

Some Scottish culture, courtesy of Spencer Hines.
Jottings of New York
Oh, mighty city of New York, you are wonderful to behold--
Your buildings are magnificent-- the truth be it told--
They were the only thing that seemed to arrest my eye,
Because many of them are thirteen storeys high;
And as for Central Park, it is lovely to be seen--
Especially in the summer season when its shrubberies are green
And the Burns Statue is there to be seen,
Surrounded by trees on the beautiful sward so green;
Also Shakespeare and the immortal Sir Walter Scott,
Which by Scotchmen and Englishmen will never be forgot.

There are people on the Sabbath day in thousands resort--
All lov'd, in conversation, and eager for sport;
And some of them viewing the wild beasts there,
While the joyous shouts of children does rend the air--
And also beautiful black swans, I do declare.

And there's beautiful boats to be seen there,
And joyous shouts of children does rend the air,
While the boats sail along with them o'er Lohengrin Lake,
And fare is 5 cents for children, and adults ten is all they take.

And there's also summer-house shades, and merry-go-rounds
And with the merry laughter of the children the Park resounds,
During the live-long Sabbath day
Enjoying themselves at the merry-go-round play.

Then there's the elevated railroads about five storeys high,
Which the inhabitants can hear night and day passing by;
Of, such a mass of people there daily do throng--
No less than five 100,000 daily pass along;
And all along the city you can get for five cents--
And, believe me, among the passengers there's few discontent.

And the top of the houses are mostly all flat,
And in the warm weather the people gather to chat;
Besides, on the housetops they dry their clothes;
And, also, many people all night on the housetops repose.

And numerous ships end steamboats are there to be seen,
Sailing along the East River water, which is very green--
Which is certainly a most beautiful sight
To see them sailing o'er the smooth water day and night.

And as for Brooklyn Bridge, it's a very great height,
And fills the stranger's heart with wonder at first sight;
And with all its loftiness I venture to say
It cannot surpass the new railway bridge of the Silvery Tay.

And there's also ten thousand rumsellers there--
Oh, wonderful to think of, I do declare!
To accommodate the people of New York therein,
And to encourage them to commit all sorts of sin

And on the Sabbath day ye will see many a man
Going for beer with a big tin can,
And seems proud to be seen carrying home the beer
To treat his neighbours and his family dear.

Then at night numbers of the people dance and sing,
Making the walls of their houses to ring
With their songs and dancing on Sabbath night,
Which I witnessed with disgust, and fled from the sight.

And with regard to New York and the sights I did see--
Believe me, I never saw such sights in Dundee;
And the morning I sailed from the city of New York
My heart it felt as light as a cork.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 11:46:01    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:X6ydncP4xOL2NyLanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@rcn.net...
Sitat:

AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...

"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would
wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter
Jones,
2
January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)

he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.

many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army? No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get injured so
in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i
doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.


By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from a
regular officer who was senior in rank.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 13:04:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
Sitat:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message

news:X6ydncP4xOL2NyLanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@rcn.net...





AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...

"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would
wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter
Jones,
2
January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)

he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.

many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army? No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get injured so
in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i
doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.

By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from a
regular officer who was senior in rank.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

But would a regular officer junior in rank consider that he was still
superior in rank?
History says yes.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 13:18:01    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d167f941-1b59-4584-b907-350e34f7e797@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com ...
Sitat:
On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk

By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from
a
regular officer who was senior in rank.


But would a regular officer junior in rank consider that he was still
superior in rank?
History says yes.

I think regular officers always outranked militia officers in British
service until the last century.

Rank in the British army is horribly complex.

Officers had an 'army' rank, a 'regimental' (or corps) rank and many held
ranks in armies thatw ere technically foreign but came under British
control.

General Gordon never held a rank above that of major in the Royal Engineers.

On the other hand it would be a brave captain who tried giving orders to
Harry Lumsden when he was at the head of the Regiment of Guides, even
though Lumsden was technically a lieutenant. I imagine that when John
Lawrence was at the head of one of the six regiments he raised and the army
he commanded in India during the mutiny nobody much under the rank of
general tried giving him orders either, despite him not holding a regular
commission at the time.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 13:21:01    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

On Feb 23, 7:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
wrote:
Sitat:
On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:



"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message

news:X6ydncP4xOL2NyLanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@rcn.net...

AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ....
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...

"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would
wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter
Jones,
2
January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)

he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.

many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army?  No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get injured so
in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i
doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.

By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from a
regular officer who was senior in rank.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time,  like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

But would a regular officer junior in rank consider that he was still
superior in rank?
History says yes.

in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original
state colonies
consider themselves independent of the crown? were these militias all
staffed by
locals, or were regular British army officers in charge of each
militia? history
records when George Washington, decades later, got a commission to
join the
British royal navy, he had to resign it, begging the question who
granted officer
commission in the colonies in the 1680s, and earlier, the Colony, or
the Crown?

aaron
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 13:34:01    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

On Feb 23, 7:20 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sitat:
On Feb 23, 7:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net
wrote:



On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message

news:X6ydncP4xOL2NyLanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@rcn.net...

AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...

"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would
wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter
Jones,
2
January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)

he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.

many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army? No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get injured so
in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i
doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.

By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from a
regular officer who was senior in rank.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

But would a regular officer junior in rank consider that he was still
superior in rank?
History says yes.

in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original
state colonies
consider themselves independent of the crown? were these militias all
staffed by
locals, or were regular British army officers in charge of each
militia? history
records when George Washington, decades later, got a commission to
join the
British royal navy, he had to resign it, begging the question who
granted officer
commission in the colonies in the 1680s, and earlier, the Colony, or
the Crown?

aaron

You may be confusing GW's half-brother Lawrence with GW himself. Larry
was in the RN. Question: the royal governor of Virginia appointed
George to an "adjutantship in the militia", is this a military
appointment or a civil appointment?
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 14:05:21    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

<AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e34efce-dbe7-44f6-85c9-69cbeab44572@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com ...


in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original
state colonies
consider themselves independent of the crown?

----------------------------

Certainly not.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 15:11:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

On Feb 22, 11:20 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Sitat:
deemsb...@aol.com wrote:

   That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army force
available for emergencies, extra to the English standing army. The 1757
Militia Act created a more professional force, with better organisation,
better uniforms and better record-keeping.

The English (later British) Empire had many militia units, including
dozens in England itself. America was thus one of the many British
territories which raised its own milita units and these units were the
primary British army units in the early days of the colony. To that end,
all the colonial militia units were British colonial units and the
soldiers within them were British colonial militia soldiers. Including
George Washington.

This whole thread started because I accused RE Lee of being a
traitor. Hal then chimed in about Washington doing the same thing. My
point is that Lee was a Colonel in the US Army. In fact, he was
probably in the top dozen officers considering there were only a few
generals at the time. He resigned from the US Army and then joined the
Confederate Army to fight against the US...which he had sworn an oath
to defend, etc.
Now, if he had resigned because he could not in good conscience
fight against his home state, all well and good. My problem is when he
took up arms.
Washington was never a regular British Army officer. He was denied a
commission in the regulars. His service consisted of leading Virginia
Colonial Militia troops who were raised, paid for, and commanded by
the Virginia govt. His only service with British Regulars was with the
Braddock Expedition where he served as a volunteer, unpaid aide.
All rebellious colonists were traitors to the British Crown. As
were all Brits who fought against the legitimate govt in the English
Civil War.....or those who have opposed their govts throughout
history. So for Hal to say treason is a US thing, he needs to widen
his net to include a huge number of other people throughout history.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 16:42:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 2/23/2008 7:35:31 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
jacklinthicum@earthlink.net writes:

On Feb 23, 7:20 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
<AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sitat:
On Feb 23, 7:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net
wrote:



On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message

news:X6ydncP4xOL2NyLanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@rcn.net...

AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...

"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one
would
wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr.
Walter
Jones,
2
January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America
(1319)

he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.

many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army? No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get
injured so
in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i
doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.

By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order
from a
regular officer who was senior in rank.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough
gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

But would a regular officer junior in rank consider that he was still
superior in rank?
History says yes.

in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original
state colonies
consider themselves independent of the crown? were these militias all
staffed by
locals, or were regular British army officers in charge of each
militia? history
records when George Washington, decades later, got a commission to
join the
British royal navy, he had to resign it, begging the question who
granted officer
commission in the colonies in the 1680s, and earlier, the Colony, or
the Crown?

aaron

You may be confusing GW's half-brother Lawrence with GW himself. Larry
was in the RN. Question: the royal governor of Virginia appointed
George to an "adjutantship in the militia", is this a military
appointment or a civil appointment?

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message
Dear Jack,
Military Adjutant. this was the Officer in charge
of compiling reports of the various units, both officers and enlisted men ,
lists of men dying of disease (which included wounds), casualty lists of
death in battle and desertions from units.
Sincerely,

James W Cummings

Dixmont, Maine USA






**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 17:09:02    Tittel: Re: SOCK PUPPETS for Will Johnson, MEEP, MEEP Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 2/23/2008 11:07:02 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
Jwc1870@aol.com writes:



In a message dated 2/22/2008 11:40:28 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
wjhonson@aol.com writes:

On Feb 22, 4:04 am, WILeeLcoJOteg...@gmail.com wrote:
Sitat:
SOCK PUPPETS for Will Johnson. meep, meep
the definitive list (and growing...)

JWC Doxmont at AOL

deemsbill at AOL

CHRIS8REGIS at AOL

Very silly.
You are apparently the last one to realize that *the vast majority* of
"people" on this list are my sock puppets. I am the master puppetter,
I can keep 12 to 20 of them going all at once. I'm super special and
fabulous.

Will Johnson

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and
the body of the message
Dear WILee,
really ? I`m a Sock Puppet for Will
Jhonson ? Don`t quite think so. I was under the impression that a sock puppet was a
pseudonym used by an individual attempting to cloak his own identity.If You
can find a copy of Marquis`Who`s Who in America check the entry for James
William Cummings poet and genealogist of Dixmont, Maine, USA. born 1960 son of
Donald and Marjorie I am who I am which has nothing to do with who anyone
else is. I may occasionally agree with Will, Leo, Peter, Douglas, Todd, Don or
maybe even you if you ever post something I believe might make the slightest
bit of sense.
In all sincerity,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA




____________________________________
Delicious ideas to please the pickiest eaters. _Watch the video on AOL
Living._
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

ps slight slip in posting to board.



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 18:23:07    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fpp6v4$9up$1@registered.motzarella.org...
Sitat:

AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e34efce-dbe7-44f6-85c9-69cbeab44572@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com ...


in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original
state colonies
consider themselves independent of the crown?

----------------------------

Certainly not.


the crown also found it was nigh impossible to ever get the militia to
co-operate.
they would routinely refuse to be used outside their home colonies and when
they did agree it was for reasons of self defense or financial gain.
if the british had ever tried to deploy them to europe the crown would have
quickly discovered how little control they had.


during WWII american enlisted men were required to obey brit officers but
that didn't make them part of the british army.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 19:02:06    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

<deemsbill@aol.com> wrote .....

(Snippagio, re: RELee)

Lee's position becomes even more delicate when one considers the claim that
Scott actually was offering him command of all Union forces in the field.

On the other hand, his claim of loyalty to his home state is solidly (if one
accepts the legal argument prevailing in much of the South) supported by the
doctrine which allowed enabled Secession, the essence of each state's act of
secession, that the US was a union of its states, and that if a citizen's
state had withdrawn from the union, his/her official ties and
responsibilities had ceased to exist.

Obviously, while never approving or acknowledging the validity of that legal
position/doctrine, after the end of the war, the government in Washington
certainly gave it tacit acceptance, neither engaging in much in the way of
legal proceedings for easily provable cases of treason, allowing both
military and civilian officials to return to allegiance or hold office
subject only to a simple oath, and simply erasing a page or two of history
with examples such as Joe Wheeler's appointment to command in 1898.

Certainly, treatment to those who joined the Confederacy was less rigorous
than the fate of many "Loyalists" after 1781. Maybe the authorities took a
page from British history, as there was a lot of forgiving given
contemporary with the Restoration.

TMO
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 19:17:04    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:Q-ednWFC3OYjy13anZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@rcn.net...
Sitat:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fpp6v4$9up$1@registered.motzarella.org...

AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2e34efce-dbe7-44f6-85c9-69cbeab44572@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com ...


in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original
state colonies
consider themselves independent of the crown?

----------------------------

Certainly not.


the crown also found it was nigh impossible to ever get the militia to
co-operate.
they would routinely refuse to be used outside their home colonies and
when
they did agree it was for reasons of self defense or financial gain.
if the british had ever tried to deploy them to europe the crown would
have
quickly discovered how little control they had.

Australian, Canadian, Irish, Indian, New Zealand, West African and other
forces certainly operated with great distinction outside their home
colonies.


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 19:24:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

On Feb 23, 3:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
Sitat:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message

news:X6ydncP4xOL2NyLanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@rcn.net...







AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...

"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would
wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter
Jones,
2
January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)

he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.

many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army?  No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get injured so
in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i
doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.

By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from a
regular officer who was senior in rank.


Maybe, but the Americans had just that situation in the War of 1812.

I can't remember the details, but there was a well planned campaign to
use some (New York?) state "militia" forces and some Federal Army
forces, and then a third force for attacking up into Canada.

It was a good plan, but the state commanders wouldn't take orders from
the Federal general, and he wouldn't take orders from them, and they
couldn't get coordinated and the thing went poorly.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 20:31:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

William Black wrote:
Sitat:
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:d167f941-1b59-4584-b907-350e34f7e797@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk

By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an
order from a
regular officer who was senior in rank.


But would a regular officer junior in rank consider that he was still
superior in rank?
History says yes.

I think regular officers always outranked militia officers in British
service until the last century.

Rank in the British army is horribly complex.

Officers had an 'army' rank, a 'regimental' (or corps) rank and many
held ranks in armies thatw ere technically foreign but came under
British control.

General Gordon never held a rank above that of major in the Royal
Engineers.

He may well have had a promotion to major-general, but not been actually
appointed to such a post. I found someone in the Army Lists (mid-19th
century) who had been promoted to major-general, but whose actual
appointment was still as a major!
--
John Briggs
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 20:31:41    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

William Black wrote:
Sitat:
"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpnlus$tsf$2@mouse.otenet.gr...
William Black wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpnift$sj7$1@mouse.otenet.gr...


None of the militias, in England or anywhere else, were recognised
by The Crown. But, if needs be, The Crown would use them, through
their patron.


You're telling me that Yeomanry Regiment officers don't hold a
proper commission?

No. I'm not talking in the present tense. I'm talking of the 18th
century militia.

You could have some fun talking in the present tense as well.

These days County Yeomanry officers hold the Queen's commission.

In the eighteenth century things changed several times.

regiments started out as private ventures, although that was very old
fashioned by then,

No - you are thinking of the fact that the colonel of a regular regiment was
resposible personally for all financial aspects of raising and equiping a
regiment. That didn't make it a "private venture" - "outsourcing", if you
like :-)

Sitat:
by the start of the Napoleonic Wars the regular
regiments were reformed and so usually numbered.

Other wy round. The regiments were always numbered (even if referred to by
the colonel's name) - by the time of Waterloo they hd also acquired county
designations.

Sitat:
The Yeomanry who fought at Waterloo were officered by men who held full
commissions.

There weren't any "Yeomanry" at Waterloo - you are confusing the county
designations of the regular regiments with the county yeomanry and militias.

Sitat:
I would have to check what the position was as regards yeomanry in
1776, but as it's you I just can't be bothered...

They were under the authority of the Lord Lieutenant - in fact, that was the
Lord Lieutenant's only real function.
--
John Briggs
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 20:31:41    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

Renia wrote:
Sitat:
John Briggs wrote:

Renia wrote:

TMOliver wrote:

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpmsn7$jkb$1@mouse.otenet.gr...


deemsbill@aol.com wrote:


That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army
force available for emergencies, extra to the English standing
army. The 1757 Militia Act created a more professional force,
with better organisation, better uniforms and better
record-keeping. The English (later British) Empire had many militia
units,
including dozens in England itself. America was thus one of the
many British territories which raised its own milita units and
these units were the primary British army units in the early days
of the colony. To that end, all the colonial militia units were
British colonial units and the soldiers within them were British
colonial militia soldiers. Including George Washington.


There are some interesting distinctions (as there were distinctions
between the status of the various American colonies).

Virginia was a "Royal" colony, however, the Regiment in which
Washington had held a commission was a colonial regiment, raised,
equipped and paid by the colony from colonial revenue. Certainly,
the militia of the Mohawk Valley in New York had no Crown
connection, to the point that it seems to have often refused orders
issued by Regulars

None of the militias, in England or anywhere else, were recognised
by The Crown. But, if needs be, The Crown would use them, through
their patron.

Nonsense. The Lord Lieutenant has command of the militia,
volunteers, etc of the County. Similarly, a colonial Governor is
also Commander-in-Chief. But we are talking about a Regiment raised
by Virginia - not the militia (well-regulated or otherwise...)

I'm not talking of the present, but of the mid-18th century. They
weren't Government sponsored militias but raised by private
subscription. However, the worthy who raised his militia might be
persuaded to let his militia act on Government business.

That's delusional nonsense. Lords Lieutenant were appointed by Elizabeth I.
--
John Briggs
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 20:31:43    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

Jack Linthicum wrote:
Sitat:
On Feb 23, 7:20 am, "AaronParmen...@gmail.com"
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Feb 23, 7:01 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net
wrote:



On Feb 23, 5:48 am, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message

news:X6ydncP4xOL2NyLanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@rcn.net...

AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...

"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one
would wish, his deportment easy, erect and noble."

-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr.
Walter Jones, 2 January 1814)

Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of
America (1319)

he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.

many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General
Court at various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and
many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was
way before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial
militias or
the British army? No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get
injured so in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the
british army and i doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.

By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an
order from a regular officer who was senior in rank.

--
William Black

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the
Newborough gate All these moments will be lost in time, like
icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

But would a regular officer junior in rank consider that he was
still superior in rank?
History says yes.

in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original
state colonies
consider themselves independent of the crown? were these militias
all staffed by
locals, or were regular British army officers in charge of each
militia? history
records when George Washington, decades later, got a commission to
join the
British royal navy, he had to resign it, begging the question who
granted officer
commission in the colonies in the 1680s, and earlier, the Colony, or
the Crown?

aaron

You may be confusing GW's half-brother Lawrence with GW himself. Larry
was in the RN. Question: the royal governor of Virginia appointed
George to an "adjutantship in the militia", is this a military
appointment or a civil appointment?

It's a miltary appointment, obviously - but under the Governor's authority
(which derives from the Crown), rather than being a direct Crown
appointment. Washington himself had received an appointment as a Midshipman
in the navy, but his mother refused her permission (necessary because he was
underage.) Wasn't Lawrence a Marine? It is debatable whether they were army
or navy - they were army regiments under the authority of the Admiralty
rather than the War Office.
--
John Briggs
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 21:00:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fppns3$vc$1@registered.motzarella.org...
Sitat:

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:Q-ednWFC3OYjy13anZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@rcn.net...

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fpp6v4$9up$1@registered.motzarella.org...

AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2e34efce-dbe7-44f6-85c9-69cbeab44572@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com ...


in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original
state colonies
consider themselves independent of the crown?

----------------------------

Certainly not.


the crown also found it was nigh impossible to ever get the militia to
co-operate.
they would routinely refuse to be used outside their home colonies and
when
they did agree it was for reasons of self defense or financial gain.
if the british had ever tried to deploy them to europe the crown would
have
quickly discovered how little control they had.

Australian, Canadian, Irish, Indian, New Zealand, West African and
other
forces certainly operated with great distinction outside their home
colonies.


and what relevance does any of that have to thequestion at hand.
americans aren't tame quislings like those people were/are.

the west african's and indians were little better than mercenaries anyway.
they certainly weren't militias.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 22:48:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:DvCdnfw2xc7G5l3anZ2dnUVZ_s-pnZ2d@rcn.net...
Sitat:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fppns3$vc$1@registered.motzarella.org...

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:Q-ednWFC3OYjy13anZ2dnUVZ_oGjnZ2d@rcn.net...

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fpp6v4$9up$1@registered.motzarella.org...

AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2e34efce-dbe7-44f6-85c9-69cbeab44572@n58g2000hsf.googlegroups.com ...


in 1680s there were many Colonial militias, and would these original
state colonies
consider themselves independent of the crown?

----------------------------

Certainly not.


the crown also found it was nigh impossible to ever get the militia to
co-operate.
they would routinely refuse to be used outside their home colonies and
when
they did agree it was for reasons of self defense or financial gain.
if the british had ever tried to deploy them to europe the crown would
have
quickly discovered how little control they had.

Australian, Canadian, Irish, Indian, New Zealand, West African and
other
forces certainly operated with great distinction outside their home
colonies.


and what relevance does any of that have to thequestion at hand.
americans aren't tame quislings like those people were/are.

the west african's and indians were little better than mercenaries anyway.
they certainly weren't militias.

And the Irish?


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 23:33:07    Tittel: Re: Bill Safire Stands Corrected Re: He/Him Svar med Sitat

"Custos Custodum" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message

Some Scottish Culture, courtesy of Spencer Hines.
Jottings of New York
Oh, mighty city of New York, you are wonderful to behold--
Your buildings are magnificent-- the truth be it told--
They were the only thing that seemed to arrest my eye,
Because many of them are thirteen storeys high;
And as for Central Park, it is lovely to be seen--
Especially in the summer season when its shrubberies are green
And the Burns Statue is there to be seen,
Surrounded by trees on the beautiful sward so green;
Also Shakespeare and the immortal Sir Walter Scott,
Which by Scotchmen and Englishmen will never be forgot.

There are people on the Sabbath day in thousands resort--
All lov'd, in conversation, and eager for sport;
And some of them viewing the wild beasts there,
While the joyous shouts of children does rend the air--
And also beautiful black swans, I do declare.

And there's beautiful boats to be seen there,
And joyous shouts of children does rend the air,
While the boats sail along with them o'er Lohengrin Lake,
And fare is 5 cents for children, and adults ten is all they take.

And there's also summer-house shades, and merry-go-rounds
And with the merry laughter of the children the Park resounds,
During the live-long Sabbath day
Enjoying themselves at the merry-go-round play.

Then there's the elevated railroads about five storeys high,
Which the inhabitants can hear night and day passing by;
Of, such a mass of people there daily do throng--
No less than five 100,000 daily pass along;
And all along the city you can get for five cents--
And, believe me, among the passengers there's few discontent.

And the top of the houses are mostly all flat,
And in the warm weather the people gather to chat;
Besides, on the housetops they dry their clothes;
And, also, many people all night on the housetops repose.

And numerous ships end steamboats are there to be seen,
Sailing along the East River water, which is very green--
Which is certainly a most beautiful sight
To see them sailing o'er the smooth water day and night.

And as for Brooklyn Bridge, it's a very great height,
And fills the stranger's heart with wonder at first sight;
And with all its loftiness I venture to say
It cannot surpass the new railway bridge of the Silvery Tay.

And there's also ten thousand rumsellers there--
Oh, wonderful to think of, I do declare!
To accommodate the people of New York therein,
And to encourage them to commit all sorts of sin

And on the Sabbath day ye will see many a man
Going for beer with a big tin can,
And seems proud to be seen carrying home the beer
To treat his neighbours and his family dear.

Then at night numbers of the people dance and sing,
Making the walls of their houses to ring
With their songs and dancing on Sabbath night,
Which I witnessed with disgust, and fled from the sight.

And with regard to New York and the sights I did see--
Believe me, I never saw such sights in Dundee;
And the morning I sailed from the city of New York
My heart it felt as light as a cork.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 23:33:49    Tittel: Re: Bill Safire Stands Corrected Re: He/Him Svar med Sitat

"J A" <jantero159@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:d99b6e3a-455d-

Some Scottish Culture, courtesy of Spencer Hines.
Jottings of New York
Oh, mighty city of New York, you are wonderful to behold--
Your buildings are magnificent-- the truth be it told--
They were the only thing that seemed to arrest my eye,
Because many of them are thirteen storeys high;
And as for Central Park, it is lovely to be seen--
Especially in the summer season when its shrubberies are green
And the Burns Statue is there to be seen,
Surrounded by trees on the beautiful sward so green;
Also Shakespeare and the immortal Sir Walter Scott,
Which by Scotchmen and Englishmen will never be forgot.

There are people on the Sabbath day in thousands resort--
All lov'd, in conversation, and eager for sport;
And some of them viewing the wild beasts there,
While the joyous shouts of children does rend the air--
And also beautiful black swans, I do declare.

And there's beautiful boats to be seen there,
And joyous shouts of children does rend the air,
While the boats sail along with them o'er Lohengrin Lake,
And fare is 5 cents for children, and adults ten is all they take.

And there's also summer-house shades, and merry-go-rounds
And with the merry laughter of the children the Park resounds,
During the live-long Sabbath day
Enjoying themselves at the merry-go-round play.

Then there's the elevated railroads about five storeys high,
Which the inhabitants can hear night and day passing by;
Of, such a mass of people there daily do throng--
No less than five 100,000 daily pass along;
And all along the city you can get for five cents--
And, believe me, among the passengers there's few discontent.

And the top of the houses are mostly all flat,
And in the warm weather the people gather to chat;
Besides, on the housetops they dry their clothes;
And, also, many people all night on the housetops repose.

And numerous ships end steamboats are there to be seen,
Sailing along the East River water, which is very green--
Which is certainly a most beautiful sight
To see them sailing o'er the smooth water day and night.

And as for Brooklyn Bridge, it's a very great height,
And fills the stranger's heart with wonder at first sight;
And with all its loftiness I venture to say
It cannot surpass the new railway bridge of the Silvery Tay.

And there's also ten thousand rumsellers there--
Oh, wonderful to think of, I do declare!
To accommodate the people of New York therein,
And to encourage them to commit all sorts of sin

And on the Sabbath day ye will see many a man
Going for beer with a big tin can,
And seems proud to be seen carrying home the beer
To treat his neighbours and his family dear.

Then at night numbers of the people dance and sing,
Making the walls of their houses to ring
With their songs and dancing on Sabbath night,
Which I witnessed with disgust, and fled from the sight.

And with regard to New York and the sights I did see--
Believe me, I never saw such sights in Dundee;
And the morning I sailed from the city of New York
My heart it felt as light as a cork.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 23:40:06    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fpq4as$ru6$1@registered.motzarella.org...
Sitat:

and what relevance does any of that have to thequestion at hand.
americans aren't tame quislings like those people were/are.

the west african's and indians were little better than mercenaries
anyway.
they certainly weren't militias.

And the Irish?


a conquered people, they have resited with varying levels of success over
the centuries.
but as catholics weren't allowed to own land and had trouble getting
jobs{short brothers anybody:?} the army was one of the few jobs open
once the brits were tossed out of the south the pool dried up
how many served in the brit army im WWII?
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 23 Feb 2008 23:53:06    Tittel: Re: Clifford of Mapledurham? Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 2/23/2008 2:15:24 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
volucris@kpnplanet.nl writes:

Is your judgement not clouded by a wish that through Gournay one would
connect to a nice set of ancestors? You're quite critical to the
facts, arguments and suggestions that have been put forward and kind
of clinging to your theory that the unborn child of 1238 was identical
to Mathilde, the in 1241/42 mentioned wife of Roger II de Clifford.>>

------------------------------------------------------------
No I don't think it's clouded. I think I'm pointing out other possible
views.

Will Johnson



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn






InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 00:13:06    Tittel: Re: Clifford of Mapledurham? Svar med Sitat

In a message dated 2/23/2008 1:16:07 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
nugget@bordernet.com.au writes:

two manors, and there was a suit between them respecting manorial rights.*
In 4 Edw. I. 1276, the latter succeeded to the barony of his father in
England, and 1 Dec. 18 Edw. I. 1289, died seized of the manor of Mapledurham,>>


------------------------------------------------------
You're quoting a work from 1845, we need to see the original primaries to
see if actually she maybe held a *moiety* of the manor which was later granted.
Also she could have *bought* her sister's half. These sorts of things
can't really be properly worked out through old secondary sources who weren't
terribly apt at quoting their sources exactly.

Will Johnson



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 00:27:15    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:8KmdnQRILKKaPF3anZ2dnUVZ_oOnnZ2d@rcn.net...
Sitat:

"William Black" <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fpq4as$ru6$1@registered.motzarella.org...

and what relevance does any of that have to thequestion at hand.
americans aren't tame quislings like those people were/are.

the west african's and indians were little better than mercenaries
anyway.
they certainly weren't militias.

And the Irish?


a conquered people, they have resited with varying levels of success over
the centuries.

snip: proff that the oirish never forget History nor have never learnt
anything from it.

Sitat:
how many served in the brit army im WWII?


According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the British armed
forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

Of course, this figure will be higher if the RN and RAF recruits were cited.

But i EXPECT "Ray O'Hara" using <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> account will regale
everybody with an explanation of why these Brave Irish men fought WITH
British forces against the Nazis.

--

BRIAN
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 00:34:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nZ1wj.68$Z_2.46@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...
Sitat:


According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the British
armed
forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

Of course, this figure will be higher if the RN and RAF recruits were
cited.

But i EXPECT "Ray O'Hara" using <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> account will
regale
everybody with an explanation of why these Brave Irish men fought WITH
British forces against the Nazis.

--

BRIAN




men from ulster.


and hitler was of no concern to irland.
he didn't have the ability ti invade england and he had no reason to ever
invade ireland.
the nazies had reasons for invading who they did, lebensraum in the east and
because france and england declared war.
if the brits and french had let poland go down without objection they would
have sat out the war.{to their credit they didn't}
but hitler wasn't trying to take over the world. if he was he would have
also attacked swe and suisse.

Sitat:

Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 01:18:01    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

Ray O'Hara wrote:
Sitat:
"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nZ1wj.68$Z_2.46@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...


According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the
British armed forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

Of course, this figure will be higher if the RN and RAF recruits
were cited.

But i EXPECT "Ray O'Hara" using <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> account
will regale everybody with an explanation of why these Brave Irish
men fought WITH British forces against the Nazis.

men from ulster.

For a start you mean "Northern Ireland", as three counties of Ulster are in
the Republic.

But in any case, because of Irish sensibilities there was no conscription in
Northern Ireland - with the net result that more men from South than from
the North served in the British army during World War II.
--
John Briggs
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 01:36:53    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

"TMOliver" <tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:47beeb5e$0$4936$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Sitat:

deemsbill@aol.com> wrote ...


That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

Purely a technicality/legalism but.....although Washington held a
commission
from the Governor of Virginia, he joined Braddock's expeditionary force as
a
"Volunteer". I suspect that based upon the legal standards of the day
(and
even today), his status was at that point as a part of the "British Army".
Certainly, the teamsters and other civilians employed by that force were
serving the Crown, not Virginia.

TMO




the teamsters were not in the british army.

the thread isn't that he never served WITH brits, but whether he was in the
british army and held a british commission, which hewasn't and didn't have.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 01:38:05    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:87cfc2ab-7f18-4f7c-93b4-5d53687293be@d5g2000hsc.googlegroups.com. ..
Sitat:
On Feb 22, 10:37 am, "TMOliver" <tmoliverjr...@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote:
deemsb...@aol.com> wrote ...



That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

Purely a technicality/legalism but.....although Washington held a
commission
from the Governor of Virginia, he joined Braddock's expeditionary force
as a
"Volunteer". I suspect that based upon the legal standards of the day
(and
even today), his status was at that point as a part of the "British
Army".
Certainly, the teamsters and other civilians employed by that force were
serving the Crown, not Virginia.

TMO

Best clues would be how he was addressed by the other officers in the
field and what his messing status was back at base.

i'm sure on braddock's expedition he was addressed as braddock wished him
to be addressed, and as braddock seems to have like GW any other officer
would take heed.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 01:41:21    Tittel: RE: (Corrected) Jacobs/Jacobson (& de Croyer) and van Soldt Svar med Sitat

As to the parentage and ancestry of Philip JACOBS or JACOBSON, the early-mid
17th century Antwerp-born London merchant and royal jeweller, I have found
an additional snippet (from various sources) whose relevance is as yet
unknown to me:



The Revolt of the United Netherlands. With the Trial of Counts Egmont and
... - Page 297

by Friedrich Schiller, Alexander James William Morrison, L. Dora Schmitz -
Netherlands - 1897 - 452 pages

The Admiral of the Antwerp fleet, Jacob Jacobson, (whether designedly, or
through

carelessness, was not known,) had committed the error of sending off the ...



History of the Revolt of the Netherlands: Trial and Execution of Counts ...
- Page 316

by Friedrich Schiller - Netherlands - 1860 - 333 pages

The admiral of the Antwerp fleet, Jacob Jacobson (whether designedly or
through

carelessness was not known), had committed the error of sending off the four
...



Constable's miscellany of original and selected publications - Page 336

by Constable and co, ltd - 1828

THE SIEGE OF ANTWERP. had been discovered endeavouring to cut the cables of
the

vessels. ... But the Admiral of the Antwerp fleet, Jacob Jacobson, ...



The Works of Frederick Schiller - Page 119

by Friedrich Schiller, Alexander James William Morrison - Netherlands - 1872
- 553 pages

The Admiral of the Antwerp fleet, Jacob Jacobson, (whether designedly, or
through

carelessness, was not known,) had committed the error of sending off the ...



The Historical Works of Frederick Schiller - Page 336

by Friedrich Schiller - Thirty Years' War, 1618-1648 - 1828

But the Admiral of the Antwerp fleet, Jacob Jacobson, had either purposely,
or

from negligence, so arranged matters, that the four squadrons were allowed
to ...



The foregoing excerpts make me wonder if this was not the same man as Jacob
father of Philip Jacobs/Jacobson cited in the London Visitation pedigree of
1633-35?



The siege of Antwerp took place in 1585, with the Spanish ultimately
victorious. Antwerp's Protestant rulers and citizens fled in their
thousands, and the city was reduced from being the most important in the
Dutch lands, its population dropping from 100,000 to somewhere around
40,000. Prior to the date, the rulers of the city were banker-aristocrats
forbidden to trade, so I wonder where this admiral Jacobson fitted in and
who he was?



Given the nature of the siege, and the earlier "Spanish Fury", I wonder what
sort of records survive to document the city's former Protestant elements,
even those belonging to the higher echelons?
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 01:43:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

<AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f88f4f9a-c663-4b27-af2f-ea0f1efecf6b@34g2000hsz.googlegroups.com. ..

sure hope this thread does not slip into revisionist history
this raises the issue but does not settle the larger issue
for sons and daughters of gateway British ancestors
were members of state militias, officers and others, fighting for
states
or for the British crown prior to the Revolution?

aaron


they were colonies in those days, not states and pre-rev the interests of
crown and colony had a way of coinciding.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 01:52:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

"Renia" <renia@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote in message
news:fpmsn7$jkb$1@mouse.otenet.gr...
Sitat:
deemsbill@aol.com wrote:

That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army force
available for emergencies, extra to the English standing army. The 1757
Militia Act created a more professional force, with better organisation,
better uniforms and better record-keeping.

the colonial american militia existed to defend the settlers.
no english troops were involved in the pequot war or king phillip's war.
both were colonial affairs exclusively.
both of those were in the 1600s , 1636 for the pequot war and 1676 for the
KP war.
in both cases massachusetts bay{and plimoth colony} mustered at the dedham
muster grounds , a muster ground that served as such into the 19th century
{it was called camp meigs in the civil war}.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 02:05:05    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

"TMOliver" <tmoliverjrFIX@hot.rr.comFIX> wrote in message
news:47bf0ec2$0$24082$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Sitat:

There are some interesting distinctions (as there were distinctions
between
the status of the various American colonies).

Virginia was a "Royal" colony, however, the Regiment in which Washington
had
held a commission was a colonial regiment, raised, equipped and paid by
the
colony from colonial revenue. Certainly, the militia of the Mohawk Valley
in New York had no Crown connection, to the point that it seems to have
often refused orders issued by Regulars

Contrasting with colonial militia were units like Roger's Rangers, raised
"extra-colonially" and apparently equipped/paid from the Establishment.
Since they weren't regulars, were they militia?

I seem to recall that Boston's Artillery Company was not even a part of
the
Massachusetts colonial militia

Throughout the Empire there were militia units the status of which remain
less than clear. In the latter half of the 18th century, a naval militia
unit raised in India would have been subordinate to the EIC, not the
Crown.




rodger's rangers was an auxillery to the brit regulars and it wasn't
affiliated with any particular colony.
he was born in mass but lived as an adult in NH.
when the rev came he stayed loyal to the crown but many of his junior
officers became major militia leaders in the rev, john stark and israel
putnam being two of the more famous

the boston arty company m or more properly these days "the ancient and
honorable arty company'" still exists as a bastion for yankee swells. its
headquarters are in fanueil hall.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 02:07:56    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"D. Spencer Hines" <panther@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:j2Kvj.711$9l1.5115@eagle.america.net...
Sitat:
Theodore Roosevelt raised his own regiment, with Colonel Leonard Wood as
commander, as late as 1898 -- the 1st United States Volunteer Cavalry
Regiment -- the Rough Riders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rough_Riders

He wanted to do the same thing in 1917, when the United States entered The
Great War [World War I], and lead them into battle, but he was turned down
by President Woodrow Wilson.

DSH

Lux et Veritas et Libertas




TR had a little bit of clout in the span-am. he wasn't an ordinary citizen
by any means.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 02:13:04    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fe152197-c8c4-452e-84a0->
Sitat:
The colonial militias were of two sorts, local and colony. The smaller
colonies had militias, usually to fight Indians, that met perhaps once
a year. The bigger colonies, Virginia as an example, had county
militias and were almost like social clubs, with the gentry as the
officers, sometimes sporting out their "boys" in odd ball uniforms.
There was a third kind that was all colonies together, Rogers Rangers
and the other similar groups that did reconnaisance and "Indian
relations" jobs. Many of the colony militias were still extant in
1775, it was to take a militia group's powder at Concord that started
the Revolution, and became units in the Continental army.


http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2001_winter_spring/colonial_militia .html

it was to take powder stockpiled for use against the brits. every town had
its powder house. the one in my town still stands.
the

militia did not become the colonial army. although many men served.
regiments were raised for the continental army in a similar manner to the
civil war. the colonel was apppinted by the colonial governor and the men
were sworn in as regulars for a specified term and subject to regular
military discipline and rules..

militia units were still used during the war, appearing when trouble
thratened and dispersing to home when it passed.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 02:18:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

<deemsbill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1c9f11e9-c626-46ae-86ba-d1f17b9c916b@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com. ..
On Feb 22, 11:20 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:
Sitat:
deemsb...@aol.com wrote:

That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army force
available for emergencies, extra to the English standing army. The 1757
Militia Act created a more professional force, with better organisation,
better uniforms and better record-keeping.

The English (later British) Empire had many militia units, including
dozens in England itself. America was thus one of the many British
territories which raised its own milita units and these units were the
primary British army units in the early days of the colony. To that end,
all the colonial militia units were British colonial units and the
soldiers within them were British colonial militia soldiers. Including
George Washington.

This whole thread started because I accused RE Lee of being a
traitor. Hal then chimed in about Washington doing the same thing. My
point is that Lee was a Colonel in the US Army. In fact, he was
probably in the top dozen officers considering there were only a few
generals at the time. He resigned from the US Army and then joined the
Confederate Army to fight against the US...which he had sworn an oath
to defend, etc.
Now, if he had resigned because he could not in good conscience
fight against his home state, all well and good. My problem is when he
took up arms.
Washington was never a regular British Army officer. He was denied a
commission in the regulars. His service consisted of leading Virginia
Colonial Militia troops who were raised, paid for, and commanded by
the Virginia govt. His only service with British Regulars was with the
Braddock Expedition where he served as a volunteer, unpaid aide.
All rebellious colonists were traitors to the British Crown. As
were all Brits who fought against the legitimate govt in the English
Civil War.....or those who have opposed their govts throughout
history. So for Hal to say treason is a US thing, he needs to widen
his net to include a huge number of other people throughout history.


you're not new to the usenet. you've seen threads morph before. the
starting and end point are rarely the same.

the fact is lee was a traitor but he was lucky that the union was in the
hands of great men who weren't after vengeance.

but GW and all the FFs were committing treason against the crown. even they
understood that.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 02:52:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

William Black wrote:
Sitat:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:X6ydncP4xOL2NyLanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@rcn.net...
AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...
"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would
wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."
-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter
Jones,
2
January 1814)
Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)
he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.
many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army? No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get injured so
in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i
doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.


By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from a
regular officer who was senior in rank.


How would they have actually received such an order? At least during
the Seven Years/F&I War, communications were abysmal.

--
Les Cargill
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 03:03:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CJ2wj.2787$g81.1960@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Sitat:
Ray O'Hara wrote:
"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nZ1wj.68$Z_2.46@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...


According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the
British armed forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

Of course, this figure will be higher if the RN and RAF recruits
were cited.

But i EXPECT "Ray O'Hara" using <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> account
will regale everybody with an explanation of why these Brave Irish
men fought WITH British forces against the Nazis.

men from ulster.

For a start you mean "Northern Ireland", as three counties of Ulster are
in
the Republic.

But in any case, because of Irish sensibilities there was no conscription
in
Northern Ireland - with the net result that more men from South than from
the North served in the British army during World War II.
--
John Briggs




and they are routinely referred to as ulster, so go back to your corner anal
retentive ways.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 03:12:21    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Les Cargill" <lcargill@cfl.rr.com> wrote in message
news:47c0ce04$0$30717$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Sitat:
William Black wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:X6ydncP4xOL2NyLanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@rcn.net...
AaronParmenter@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...
"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would
wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."
-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter
Jones,
2
January 1814)
Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America
(1319)
he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.
many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army? No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get injured
so
in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i
doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.


By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order
from a
regular officer who was senior in rank.


How would they have actually received such an order? At least during
the Seven Years/F&I War, communications were abysmal.

--
Les Cargill


brit officers commanded any expedition that had regular and colonial troops.
if the brits weren't with the militia they had no control over it.
a good case in study is billy johnson of new york. he was a " major general"
but he defered to a regular british officer of lesser rank, big gen john
prideaux during the fort niagara expedition. at least until that officer was
killed , then johnson took command again.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 03:33:04    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

On Feb 23, 8:19 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
Sitat:
deemsb...@aol.com> wrote in message

news:1c9f11e9-c626-46ae-86ba-d1f17b9c916b@28g2000hsw.googlegroups.com. ..
On Feb 22, 11:20 am, Renia <re...@DELETEotenet.gr> wrote:





deemsb...@aol.com wrote:

That was an awful lot of effort to show that Washington was an
officer in the virginia Militia, but not in the British Army.

The Militia were private forces which acted as a reserve army force
available for emergencies, extra to the English standing army. The 1757
Militia Act created a more professional force, with better organisation,
better uniforms and better record-keeping.

The English (later British) Empire had many militia units, including
dozens in England itself. America was thus one of the many British
territories which raised its own milita units and these units were the
primary British army units in the early days of the colony. To that end,
all the colonial militia units were British colonial units and the
soldiers within them were British colonial militia soldiers. Including
George Washington.

  This whole thread started because I accused RE Lee of being a
traitor. Hal then chimed in about Washington doing the same thing. My
point is that Lee was a Colonel in the US Army. In fact, he was
probably in the top dozen officers considering there were only a few
generals at the time. He resigned from the US Army and then joined the
Confederate Army to fight against the US...which he had sworn an oath
to defend, etc.
  Now, if he had resigned because he could not in good conscience
fight against his home state, all well and good. My problem is when he
took up arms.
  Washington was never a regular British Army officer. He was denied a
commission in the regulars. His service consisted of leading Virginia
Colonial Militia troops who were raised, paid for, and commanded by
the Virginia govt. His only service with British Regulars was with the
Braddock Expedition where he served as a volunteer, unpaid aide.
   All rebellious colonists were traitors to the British Crown. As
were all Brits who fought against the legitimate govt in the English
Civil War.....or those who have opposed their govts throughout
history. So for Hal to say treason is a US thing, he needs to widen
his net to include a huge number of other people throughout history.

you're not new to the usenet.  you've seen threads morph before. the
starting and end point are rarely the same.

That doesn't stop me from trying to rein it in.....

Sitat:

the fact is lee was a traitor but he was lucky that the union was in the
hands of great men who weren't after vengeance.

And I agree with their reasons.

Sitat:

but GW and all the FFs were committing treason against the crown. even they
understood that.-

Agreed, I'm just quibbling over Hal's comments.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 04:13:04    Tittel: re: anming laws in the 1300 query Svar med Sitat

Thankyou Renia,

I couldn't seem to thankyou through the message you sent.
Edie
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 05:17:04    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

On Feb 23, 9:32 pm, "deemsb...@aol.com" <deemsb...@aol.com> wrote:
Sitat:
On Feb 23, 8:19 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:

   Agreed, I'm just quibbling over Hal's comments.

stop quibbling, and stop revisionist history.

GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/presidents_and_first_ladies/27515

George Washington is remembered for many things. He was the victorious
general who defeated the most powerful army on earth to win our
nation's independence. He then provided the leadership for the
Constitutional Convention that formed our new government. He then led
our new government as our first president. He was "first in war, first
in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen." But few people know
anything about his early military career.


Washington began his military career at the age of 20. He idolized his
half-brother Lawrence, who was the adjutant of the Virginia militia.
When Lawrence died in 1752, George applied for his job. George had no
military experience, no military training, in fact very little formal
education of any kind since he had dropped out of school at 15. Still,
as though it were a family possession to be inherited, he received
Lawrence's job as adjutant of the Virginia militia. At 20, with no
training or experience, he became a major in the largest military
organization in the Western Hemisphere.
In October 1753, looking for duty more exciting than drilling and
training rural militia, Washington volunteered for a dangerous
mission. British Governor Robert Dinwiddie had received word that the
French had come down from Canada and built a fort in the western
territory near the Ohio River. The Governor sent Washington and a
small force to carry a message to the French to leave English
territory. (Virginia claimed this land, as well as most of the lands
west of all the English colonies from Georgia to New York.)
Washington left in November and took two months to make the hazardous
journey through the winter snows and the wilderness to the French Fort
Le Boeuf, (near present-day Erie, Pa.), and back to Virginia. The
French commander's blunt reply was, "As to the summons you send me to
retire, I do not think myself obliged to obey it." Washington informed
the Governor that the French were probably going to build another fort
on the Ohio River near present-day Pittsburgh. Governor Dinwiddie had
already sent men to that place to build a fort. Washington's report
convinced the Governor to send troops to protect the workers from
French attack.
In March 1754, Washington, now a lieutenant colonel, led an expedition
to the Ohio River to hold the region for Britain. His force consisted
of less than 200 poorly trained militia. After a month, and having
covered less than a third of the distance, he received word that the
French had already captured the uncompleted British fort that was his
objective. Still, he pressed forward.

George Washington is remembered for many things. He was the victorious
general who defeated the most powerful army on earth to win our
nation's independence. He then provided the leadership for the
Constitutional Convention that formed our new government. He then led
our new government as our first president. He was "first in war, first
in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen." But few people know
anything about his early military career.

Washington began his military career at the age of 20. He idolized his
half-brother Lawrence, who was the adjutant of the Virginia militia.
When Lawrence died in 1752, George applied for his job. George had no
military experience, no military training, in fact very little formal
education of any kind since he had dropped out of school at 15. Still,
as though it were a family possession to be inherited, he received
Lawrence's job as adjutant of the Virginia militia. At 20, with no
training or experience, he became a major in the largest military
organization in the Western Hemisphere.
In October 1753, looking for duty more exciting than drilling and
training rural militia, Washington volunteered for a dangerous
mission. British Governor Robert Dinwiddie had received word that the
French had come down from Canada and built a fort in the western
territory near the Ohio River. The Governor sent Washington and a
small force to carry a message to the French to leave English
territory. (Virginia claimed this land, as well as most of the lands
west of all the English colonies from Georgia to New York.)
Washington left in November and took two months to make the hazardous
journey through the winter snows and the wilderness to the French Fort
Le Boeuf, (near present-day Erie, Pa.), and back to Virginia. The
French commander's blunt reply was, "As to the summons you send me to
retire, I do not think myself obliged to obey it." Washington informed
the Governor that the French were probably going to build another fort
on the Ohio River near present-day Pittsburgh. Governor Dinwiddie had
already sent men to that place to build a fort. Washington's report
convinced the Governor to send troops to protect the workers from
French attack.
In March 1754, Washington, now a lieutenant colonel, led an expedition
to the Ohio River to hold the region for Britain. His force consisted
of less than 200 poorly trained militia. After a month, and having
covered less than a third of the distance, he received word that the
French had already captured the uncompleted British fort that was his
objective. Still, he pressed forward.

n late May, he encountered his first French troops, and had a skirmish
which is considered by many to have been the first shots of the French
and Indian War. In Washington's own words:
"I was the first man that approached them, and the first whom they
saw, and immediately they ran to their arms and fired briskly till
they were defeated....I fortunately escaped without any wound, for the
right wing, where I stood, was exposed to, and received, all the
enemy's fire; and it was the part where the man was killed and the
rest wounded. I heard the bullets whistle, and believe me, there is
something charming in the sound."
When this last quotation was reported to King George II later in the
year, he is said to have commented that Washington "would not say so,
if he had been used to hear many." Washington himself, years later
when asked about the quote, would only say that it had been made "when
I was young."
In this brief fight, Washington's troops killed 10 Frenchmen and
captured 21, with the loss of only one Virginian. One of the killed
was the French commander. Washington now set about building a stockade
fort, which he named Fort Necessity. Governor Dinwiddie rewarded him
by promoting him to full colonel.
The French sent a retaliatory attack against Washington before he
could complete his fort. He was surrounded by the French. It was
raining hard, and his poorly trained and ill-disciplined troops were
cold, and their gunpowder was wet. They broke into the rum supply and
got drunk. With drunken troops with wet gunpowder, there was nothing
Washington could do but surrender. Although he had refused when asked
twice before, the third time he could not refuse. In an ironic twist
of fate, Washington surrendered on July 4th, 1754. Having dropped out
of school, he had never learned to speak French, which all English
gentlemen learned. When he could not read the written French demands,
he had to rely on a Dutchman among his troops who spoke some French.
Due to the faulty translation, Washington signed a surrender document
which admitted to the assassination of the French commander killed in
the battle. He admitted that the French commander had been captured,
and killed while an unarmed prisoner. He had also agreed that the
"disputed" lands belonged to France, and agreed that the British would
not "invade" the area for at least a year. The French broadcast this
document widely in justification of their actions during the French
and Indian War that continued for the next nine years. Washington
immediately returned to Williamsburg to give a first hand report to
the Governor. He was absolved of all blame, with the Dutchman being
held responsible. Washington was acclaimed for his soldierly courage.

Shortly after this incident, word came from London that all militia
units would be placed under one commander, and that no colonial
officer would be higher than a captain, with all higher officers
supplied by the English. Washington retired rather than accept the
demotion. But this was not the end of his military career.
In the Spring of 1755, Major General Braddock prepared to lead a
regiment of regular British troops to the Ohio and capture French Fort
Duquesne. Knowing of Washington's courage and previous experience, he
invited Washington to join him as an aide-de-camp. In July, they
reached the Monongahela River and fought a battle with the French.
During the battle, Braddock was killed and the British troops
defeated. Washington took command of the British troops and prevented
a rout. He got the British troops home safely, again being hailed for
his courage. At 23, Washington was now the most experienced military
officer in Virginia. He was again appointed commander of the Virginia
militia with the rank of colonel.
Colonel Washington traveled to Philadelphia, Boston and New York to
confer with northern military leaders. He made a most favorable
impression on these leaders, and they remembered him later. In 1758,
Washington led an expedition which captured Fort Dusquene and re-named
it Fort Pitt. With the French driven from Virginia's lands, Washington
retired. Later, he was elected to the Continental Congress to
represent Virginia. With an army being formed to fight the British,
Washington arrived in Congress wearing his colonel's uniform, giving a
clear message as to wear he stood on the issue and his readiness to
join in the fight. Congress unanimously voted to name him commander of
the Continental Army, and the rest, as they say, is history.

aaron
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 06:48:03    Tittel: Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henr Svar med Sitat

Dear James,
Did you or did I miss the subtlety in Francois's message? William of Orange
ruled over all that was very shortly after his death officially was named
Great Britain. Francois did not say William was styled as such but defacto
he _was_.
And as the subject is the first name, I think he meant that William "could"
have been called William I. he is not saying he was or should have. He is
only speculating.
With best wishes
Leo van de Pas

----- Original Message -----
From: <Jwc1870@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL@rootsweb.com>
Cc: <Jwc1870@AOL..com>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 2:51 PM
Subject: Re: William II of Scots (Was: King Henry II-1/2 or King Henry
IIB -which do ...




In a message dated 2/23/2008 10:40:43 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
velde@heraldicanospam.invalid writes:

In medio alt.talk.royalty aperuit Graham <graham.truesdale@virgin.net> os
suum:
Sitat:
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:ADOpYb6-3VAJ:www.parliament.uk/ac tofunio
n/lib/visuals/pdf/FamilyTree.pdf+%22William+II%22+Scotland+-Rufus&hl=e n&ct=cln

k&cd=5&gl=uk
Sitat:
http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page141.asp

I realise that these may be examples of 'a historian's
convenience. How was he named on Scottish coins
and seals?

See Ruding's Annals of Coinage (1840 edition), 2:60:

"...it may be noted that there never was upon the coins of King William
struck
in Scotland any number put after his name; those who had the direction of
that
affair being sensible, that although he was the second king of Scotland of
his
name, and the third of England, he was really the first of that name that
was
king of Great Britain."
--
François Velde
velde@nospam.org (replace by "heraldica")
Heraldry Site: http://www.heraldica.org/

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject
and the body of the message
Dear Velde,
William wasn`t any more King of Great Britain
than were James I, Charles I, Charles II, James II, his wife and co-ruler
Mary (I believe that all dates 1689-1694 were under William and Mary
without
regnal numerals) and Anne until the formal act of 1707 by which Great
Britain came into being.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA



**************Ideas to please picky eaters. Watch video on AOL Living.
(http://living.aol.com/video/how-to-please-your-picky-eater/rachel-cam pos-duffy/
2050827?NCID=aolcmp00300000002598)

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
quotes in the subject and the body of the message


--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.20.9/1294 - Release Date: 2/22/2008
6:39 PM
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 07:46:02    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

William Black wrote:
[snip]

Sitat:
And the Irish?


Will fight anybody.

They look down at their clothing to see if they should be saluting
the British officer or shooting him today. ;)

Andrew Swallow
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 07:50:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:08Gdne_7s6ZZj1zanZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@bt.com...
Sitat:
William Black wrote:
[snip]

And the Irish?


Will fight anybody.
yet they've never invaded anybody



Sitat:

They look down at their clothing to see if they should be saluting
the British officer or shooting him today. ;)

Andrew Swallow


the best soldiers in every army . but somehow the irish army scares nobody.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 09:49:29    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:38ydnZuCS4R-jlzanZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@rcn.net...
Sitat:

"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:08Gdne_7s6ZZj1zanZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@bt.com...
William Black wrote:
[snip]

And the Irish?


Will fight anybody.
yet they've never invaded anybody



They look down at their clothing to see if they should be saluting
the British officer or shooting him today. ;)

Andrew Swallow


the best soldiers in every army . but somehow the irish army scares
nobody.


Seemed quite effective between the Greek and Turkish Army in Cyprus where an
Irish Army Battalion formed part of UNFICYP.

Durinf last year's 'Easter Uprising' commeration a very large contingent of
blue-bereted former soldiers marched up O'Connel Street past the saluting
base.


--

Brian
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 09:49:29    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:24Kdnc-m5f_6TV3anZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@rcn.net...
Sitat:

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:CJ2wj.2787$g81.1960@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Ray O'Hara wrote:
"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:nZ1wj.68$Z_2.46@newsfe4-win.ntli.net...


According to Wikipedia; - " Irish citizens could serve in the
British armed forces as around 38,554 in the British Army did "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_neutrality_during_World_War_II

Of course, this figure will be higher if the RN and RAF recruits
were cited.

But i EXPECT "Ray O'Hara" using <mary.palmucci@rcn.com> account
will regale everybody with an explanation of why these Brave Irish
men fought WITH British forces against the Nazis.

men from ulster.

For a start you mean "Northern Ireland", as three counties of Ulster are
in
the Republic.

But in any case, because of Irish sensibilities there was no conscription
in
Northern Ireland - with the net result that more men from South than from
the North served in the British army during World War II.
--
John Briggs




and they are routinely referred to as ulster, so go back to your corner
anal
retentive ways.

Ooh, _ray_ ! Does Mary allow you to use such puerile language on her

account? Does Mary's ISP permit such usage in its terms and conditions?


Now; ask an adult to explain to you that the wikipedia. previously cited,
term " Irish citizens " does mot. can not, refer to _British citizens_
resident in the six counties that form the province of Northern Ireland.

You asked a specific question - that you've snipped - of "how many Irish
citizens served in the British Army during WWII?" ; apparently the public
domain answer is upsetting your fixed world-view and you've reverted to
"throwing your rattle out of the pram".

--

Brian
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 11:37:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

On Feb 23, 8:53 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
Sitat:
William Black wrote:
"Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote in message
news:X6ydncP4xOL2NyLanZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@rcn.net...
AaronParmen...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f0f096c-e4ad-4877-ac80-9873276ae878@m23g2000hsc.googlegroups.com ...
On Feb 22, 9:00 pm, "Ray O'Hara" <mary.palmu...@rcn.com> wrote:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in
messagenews:v3Kvj.712$9l1.5216@eagle.america.net...
"His person, you know, was fine, his stature exactly what one would
wish,
his deportment easy, erect and noble."
-- Thomas Jefferson (on George Washington in a letter to Dr. Walter
Jones,
2
January 1814)
Reference: Jefferson: Writings, Peterson ed., Library of America (1319)
he was an officer in the virginia militia. not the british army.
many gateway ancestors and sons were deputies to the General Court at
various Massachusetts Bay Colonies during the 1600s, and many rose to
the rank of captain or higher in the Colonial militia. This was way
before Washington's time, so were these men in colonial militias or
the British army? No revisionist history, please.

aaron

they got no money from the crown and no pension should they get injured so
in my opinion the colonial militas were not in the british army and i
doubt
any redcoat would do anything a militia officer ordered him to do.

By the same token I doubt any militia officer would disobey an order from a
regular officer who was senior in rank.

How would they have actually received such an order? At least during
the Seven Years/F&I War, communications were abysmal.

--
Les Cargill

If you are standing in front of someone it is not a problem of
communication but of discipline.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 12:11:37    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

"Brian Sharrock" <b.sharrock@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:tcawj.4843$ay3.4570@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

Sitat:
You asked a specific question - that you've snipped - of "how many Irish
citizens served in the British Army during WWII?" ; apparently the public
domain answer is upsetting your fixed world-view and you've reverted to
"throwing your rattle out of the pram".

No change there.

Sorry Brian.

I set a trap, Ray fell into it and you've shovelled my carefully piled
manure all over his head.

That'll teach me to get up earlier on Sunday mornings...

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 15:28:03    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

Ray O'Hara wrote:
Sitat:
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fe152197-c8c4-452e-84a0-
The colonial militias were of two sorts, local and colony. The
smaller colonies had militias, usually to fight Indians, that met
perhaps once a year. The bigger colonies, Virginia as an example,
had county militias and were almost like social clubs, with the
gentry as the officers, sometimes sporting out their "boys" in odd
ball uniforms. There was a third kind that was all colonies
together, Rogers Rangers and the other similar groups that did
reconnaisance and "Indian relations" jobs. Many of the colony
militias were still extant in 1775, it was to take a militia group's
powder at Concord that started the Revolution, and became units in
the Continental army.


http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2001_winter_spring/colonial_militia .html
it was to take powder stockpiled for use against the brits. every
town had its powder house. the one in my town still stands.
the

militia did not become the colonial army. although many men served.
regiments were raised for the continental army in a similar manner to
the civil war. the colonel was apppinted by the colonial governor and
the men were sworn in as regulars for a specified term and subject to
regular military discipline and rules..

militia units were still used during the war, appearing when trouble
thratened and dispersing to home when it passed.

And exactly the same applied to the Virginia Regiment.
--
John Briggs
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 15:52:57    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: Was: Don't Be Paroch Svar med Sitat

Ray O'Hara wrote:
Sitat:
"Andrew Swallow" <am.swallow@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:08Gdne_7s6ZZj1zanZ2dneKdnZzinZ2d@bt.com...
William Black wrote:
[snip]

And the Irish?

Will fight anybody.
yet they've never invaded anybody

The Irish fight to fight rather than fight to win.

When something needs winning British/North Ireland officers are used.

Andrew Swallow
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 19:49:05    Tittel: Re: Guerrillas Svar med Sitat

"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:eee3934f-

Some Scottish culture, courtesy of spencer Hines.

The Destroying Angel
or The Poet's Dream
I dreamt a dream the other night
That an Angel appeared to me, clothed in white.
Oh! it was a beautiful sight,
Such as filled my heart with delight.

And in her hand she held a flaming brand,
Which she waved above her head most grand;
And on me she glared with love-beaming eyes,
Then she commanded me from my bed to arise.

And in a sweet voice she said, "You must follow me,
And in a short time you shall see
The destruction of all the public-houses in the city,
Which is, my friend, the God of Heaven's decree."

Then from my bed in fear I arose,
And quickly donned on my clothes;
And when that was done she said, " Follow me
Direct to the High Street, fearlessly."

So with the beautiful Angel away I did go,
And when we arrived at the High Street, Oh! what a show,
I suppose there were about five thousand men there,
All vowing vengeance against the publicans, I do declare.

Then the Angel cried with a solemn voice aloud
To that vast and Godly assembled crowd,
"Gentlemen belonging the fair City of Dundee,
Remember I have been sent here by God to warn ye.

"That by God's decree ye must take up arms and follow me
And wreck all the public-houses in this fair City,
Because God cannot countenance such dens of iniquity.
Therefore, friends of God, come, follow me.

"Because God has said there's no use preaching against strong drink,
Therefore, by taking up arms against it, God does think,
That is the only and the effectual cure
To banish it from the land, He is quite sure.

"Besides, it has been denounced in Dundee for fifty years
By the friends of Temperance, while oft they have shed tears.
Therefore, God thinks there's no use denouncing it any longer,
Because the more that's said against it seemingly it grows stronger."

And while the Angel was thus addressing the people,
The Devil seemed to be standing on the Townhouse Steeple,
Foaming at the mouth with rage, and seemingly much annoyed,
And kicking the Steeple because the public-houses wore going to be
destroyed.

Then the Angel cried, " Satan, avaunt! begone!"
Then he vanished in the flame, to the amazement of everyone;
And waving aloft the flaming brand,
That she carried in her right hand

She cried, "Now, friends of the Temperance cause, follow me:
For remember if's God's high decree
To destroy all the public-houses in this fair City;
Therefore, friends of God, let's commence this war immediately."

Then from the High Street we all did retire,
As the Angel, sent by God, did desire;
And along the Perth Road we all did go,
While the Angel set fire to the public-houses along that row.

And when the Perth Road public-houses were fired, she cried, " Follow me,
And next I'll fire the Hawkhill public-houses instantly."
Then away we went with the Angel, without dread or woe,
And she fired the Hawkhill public-houses as onward we did go.

Then she cried, "Let's on to the Scouringburn, in God's name."
And away to the Scouringburn we went, with our hearts aflame,
As the destroying Angel did command.
And when there she fired the public-houses, which looked very grand.

And when the public-houses there were blazing like a kiln,
She cried, " Now, my friends, we'll march to the Bonnet Hill,
And we'll fire the dens of iniquity without dismay,
Therefore let's march on, my friends, without delay."

And when we arrived at the Bonnet Hill,
The Angel fired the public-houses, as she did well.
Then she cried, "We'll leave them now to their fate,
And march on to the Murraygate."

Then we marched on to the Murraygate,
And the Angel fired the public-houses there, a most deserving fate.
Then to the High Street we marched and fired them there,
Which was a most beautiful blaze, I do declare.

And on the High Street, old men and women were gathered there,
And as the flames ascended upwards, in amazement they did stare
When they saw the public-houses in a blaze,
But they clapped their hands with joy and to God gave praise.

Then the Angel cried, "Thank God, Christ's Kingdom's near at hand,
And there will soon be peace and plenty throughout the land,
And the ravages of the demon Drink no more will be seen."
But, alas, I started up in bed, and behold it was a dream!
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 19:50:44    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

<deemsbill@aol.com> wrote in message
news:5df52959-a3a2-4110-8599-8fe8f11f20f8@o10g2000hsf.googlegroups.com ...
Sitat:

you're not new to the usenet. you've seen threads morph before. the
starting and end point are rarely the same.

< That doesn't stop me from trying to rein it in.....

has that ever worked?
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 19:51:11    Tittel: Re: Guerrillas Svar med Sitat

On Feb 24, 1:18 pm, "Nebulous" <jw...@pigtail.com> wrote:
Sitat:
"D. Spencer Hines" <pant...@excelsior.com> wrote in message news:gpiwj.744

Some Scottish culture, courtesy of spencer Hines.

The Destroying Angel
or The Poet's Dream
I dreamt a dream the other night
That an Angel appeared to me, clothed in white.
Oh! it was a beautiful sight,
Such as filled my heart with delight.

And in her hand she held a flaming brand,
Which she waved above her head most grand;
And on me she glared with love-beaming eyes,
Then she commanded me from my bed to arise.

And in a sweet voice she said, "You must follow me,
And in a short time you shall see
The destruction of all the public-houses in the city,
Which is, my friend, the God of Heaven's decree."

Then from my bed in fear I arose,
And quickly donned on my clothes;
And when that was done she said, " Follow me
Direct to the High Street, fearlessly."

So with the beautiful Angel away I did go,
And when we arrived at the High Street, Oh! what a show,
I suppose there were about five thousand men there,
All vowing vengeance against the publicans, I do declare.

Then the Angel cried with a solemn voice aloud
To that vast and Godly assembled crowd,
"Gentlemen belonging the fair City of Dundee,
Remember I have been sent here by God to warn ye.

"That by God's decree ye must take up arms and follow me
And wreck all the public-houses in this fair City,
Because God cannot countenance such dens of iniquity.
Therefore, friends of God, come, follow me.

"Because God has said there's no use preaching against strong drink,
Therefore, by taking up arms against it, God does think,
That is the only and the effectual cure
To banish it from the land, He is quite sure.

"Besides, it has been denounced in Dundee for fifty years
By the friends of Temperance, while oft they have shed tears.
Therefore, God thinks there's no use denouncing it any longer,
Because the more that's said against it seemingly it grows stronger."

And while the Angel was thus addressing the people,
The Devil seemed to be standing on the Townhouse Steeple,
Foaming at the mouth with rage, and seemingly much annoyed,
And kicking the Steeple because the public-houses wore going to be
destroyed.

Then the Angel cried, " Satan, avaunt! begone!"
Then he vanished in the flame, to the amazement of everyone;
And waving aloft the flaming brand,
That she carried in her right hand

She cried, "Now, friends of the Temperance cause, follow me:
For remember if's God's high decree
To destroy all the public-houses in this fair City;
Therefore, friends of God, let's commence this war immediately."

Then from the High Street we all did retire,
As the Angel, sent by God, did desire;
And along the Perth Road we all did go,
While the Angel set fire to the public-houses along that row.

And when the Perth Road public-houses were fired, she cried, " Follow me,
And next I'll fire the Hawkhill public-houses instantly."
Then away we went with the Angel, without dread or woe,
And she fired the Hawkhill public-houses as onward we did go.

Then she cried, "Let's on to the Scouringburn, in God's name."
And away to the Scouringburn we went, with our hearts aflame,
As the destroying Angel did command.
And when there she fired the public-houses, which looked very grand.

And when the public-houses there were blazing like a kiln,
She cried, " Now, my friends, we'll march to the Bonnet Hill,
And we'll fire the dens of iniquity without dismay,
Therefore let's march on, my friends, without delay."

And when we arrived at the Bonnet Hill,
The Angel fired the public-houses, as she did well.
Then she cried, "We'll leave them now to their fate,
And march on to the Murraygate."

Then we marched on to the Murraygate,
And the Angel fired the public-houses there, a most deserving fate.
Then to the High Street we marched and fired them there,
Which was a most beautiful blaze, I do declare.

And on the High Street, old men and women were gathered there,
And as the flames ascended upwards, in amazement they did stare
When they saw the public-houses in a blaze,
But they clapped their hands with joy and to God gave praise.

Then the Angel cried, "Thank God, Christ's Kingdom's near at hand,
And there will soon be peace and plenty throughout the land,
And the ravages of the demon Drink no more will be seen."
But, alas, I started up in bed, and behold it was a dream!
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 20:28:04    Tittel: Re: GEORGE WASHINGTON, BRITISH OFFICER: was Don't Be Parochi Svar med Sitat

Ray O'Hara wrote:
Sitat:
"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:ecfwj.7090$d62.71@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
Ray O'Hara wrote:
"Jack Linthicum" <jacklinthicum@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:fe152197-c8c4-452e-84a0-
The colonial militias were of two sorts, local and colony. The
smaller colonies had militias, usually to fight Indians, that met
perhaps once a year. The bigger colonies, Virginia as an example,
had county militias and were almost like social clubs, with the
gentry as the officers, sometimes sporting out their "boys" in odd
ball uniforms. There was a third kind that was all colonies
together, Rogers Rangers and the other similar groups that did
reconnaisance and "Indian relations" jobs. Many of the colony
militias were still extant in 1775, it was to take a militia
group's powder at Concord that started the Revolution, and became
units in the Continental army.



http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/2001_winter_spring/colonial_militia .html
it was to take powder stockpiled for use against the brits. every
town had its powder house. the one in my town still stands.
the

militia did not become the colonial army. although many men served.
regiments were raised for the continental army in a similar manner
to the civil war. the colonel was apppinted by the colonial
governor and the men were sworn in as regulars for a specified term
and subject to regular military discipline and rules..

militia units were still used during the war, appearing when trouble
threatened and dispersing to home when it passed.

And exactly the same applied to the Virginia Regiment.

the virginia regiment was more like a continental regt than a militia
unit.

That's what I meant.
--
John Briggs
Til Toppen
Skjult navn
Gjest





InnleggSkrevet: 24 Feb 2008 20:29:04    Tittel: Re: Guerrillas Svar med Sitat

"La N" <nilita2004NOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:fqjwj.38625

Little Popeet: The Lost Child
Near by the silent waters of the Mediterranean,
And at the door of an old hut stood a coloured man,
Whose dress was oriental in style and poor with wear,
While adown his furrowed cheeks ran many a tear.

And the poor coloured man seemed very discontent,
And his grief overcame him at this moment;
And he wrung his hands in agony wild,
And he cried, "Oh! help me, great God, to find my child."

"And Ada, my dear wife, but now she is dead,
Which fills my poor heart with sorrow and dread;
She was a very loving wife, but of her I'm bereft,
And I and my lost child are only left.

And, alas! I know not where to find my boy,
Who is dear to me and my only joy;
But with the help of God I will find him,
And this day in search of him I will begin."

So Medoo leaves Turkey and goes to France,
Expecting to find his boy there perhaps by chance;
And while there in Paris he was told
His boy by an Arab had been sold

To a company of French players that performed in the street,
Which was sad news to hear about his boy Popeet;
And while searching for him and making great moan,
He was told he was ill and in Madame Mercy's Home.

Then away went Medoo with his heart full of joy,
To gaze upon the face of his long-lost boy;
Who had been treated by the players mercilessly,
But was taken to the home of Madame Celeste.

She was a member of the players and the leader's wife,
And she loved the boy Popeet as dear as her life,
Because she had no children of her own;
And for the poor ill-treated boy often she did moan.

And when Popeet's father visited the Home,
He was shown into a room where Popeet lay alone,
Pale and emaciated, in his little bed;
And when his father saw him he thought he was dead.

And when Popeet saw his father he lept out of bed,
And only that his father caught him he'd been killed dead;
And his father cried, " Popeet, my own darling boy,
Thank God I've found you, and my heart's full of joy."

Then Madame Mercy's tears fell thick and fast,
When she saw that Popeet had found his father at last;
Then poor Popeet was taken home without delay,
And lived happy with his father for many a day.
Til Toppen
Vis Innlegg fra:   
Start nytt emne Alle klokkeslett er CET (Europa)
Gå til side Forrige  1, 2, 3 ... , 179, 180, 181  Neste
Side 180 av 181
 
Gå til:  
Du kan ikke starte nye emner i dette forumet
Du kan ikke svare på emner i dette forumet
Du kan ikke endre dine egne innlegg i dette forumet
Du kan ikke slette dine egne innlegg i dette forumet
Du kan ikke laste opp filer til dette forumet
Du kan ikke laste ned filer fra dette forumet


Powered by phpBB 2.0.14 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group